Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Offensive Weapons Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. David Nicholson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that you have been briefed about the reason for the withdrawal of my new clause 1, which was tabled some time ago, and the tabling last night of new clause 2, which is starred. The Public Bill Office found an error in line 9 of the new clause—it was my fault or that of those who drafted it for me—where the word "Act" was used instead of "section".
I understand that the Public Bill Office discovered the error only yesterday morning, although it has had the new clause since before the Committee stage. I learnt about the error last night at 7 o'clock through a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), and we attempted to put right the mistake by withdrawing new clause 1 and tabling new clause 2. I believe that the late discovery of the error was due to the bereavement of a staff member in the Public Bill Office. In those circumstances, Madam Speaker, I hope that you will select new clause 2 for consideration this morning.

Madam Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I have considered carefully whether I should make an exception and allow starred new clause 2 to be called in the circumstances that he has explained. However, I am not prepared to allow the Bill's proceedings to begin with consideration of a new text that hon. Members have not seen before this morning. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might consider discussing the matter with a colleague in the other place.

Clause 1

ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT FOR OFFENCES OF CARRYING OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ETC.

Mr. David Nicholson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
'( ) an offence under section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959;'.
I shall be brief, as I had intended to speak mainly about my new clause. The amendment seeks to ensure that the legislation relating to flick knives—the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959—should carry powers of arrest similar to those proposed for offensive weapons in the Bill. I hope that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in extending the Offensive Weapons Bill to include flick

knives. They are clearly a major threat to personal safety, so it is desirable that they be included within the scope of the Bill.

Mr Tim Smith: I do not have section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 before me, so I ask my hon. Friend to explain what he has in mind. Is not the matter covered by paragraph (1), which refers to an
offence of having article with blade or point in public place"?
Does that not include flick knives?

Mr. Nicholson: The drafting of the Bill is principally a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. This is a belt-and-braces effort to ensure that flick knives are included in the Bill. I made a copy of the relevant section from the 1959 Act.

Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to filibuster without having got their act together? It is clear that, as usual, an attempt is being made to avoid debating important measures that could come before the House later. Conservative Members do not seem to have got their filibuster or papers together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It is clear that a great deal of research material on the subject is available, and presumably the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) was trying to find the relevant document.

Mr. Nicholson: I had no intention of filibustering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I intended to sit down, having made my point. I cannot explain why a reference to flick knives is not in the Bill, but I have the text of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. Section 1 states:
Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale on hire or exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person—
(a) any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, sometimes known as a 'flick knife' or 'flick gun'; or
(b) any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force and which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring lever, or other device, sometimes known as a 'gravity knife',
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction … to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both such imprisonment and fine.
Therefore, I want the Bill to refer to such weapons.

Mr. John Greenway: My understanding is that the Bill's purpose is to ensure that police officers are given the power of search and arrest in a public place. The 1959 Act proscribes flick knives and gravity knives. Most of us are of an age that we can recall that in the 1950s, such weapons were a scourge on our streets. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 included a long list of other items that I can only think are used to cause injury, such as knuckledusters, hand claws, belt buckle knives and push daggers. The 1988 Act extended the 1959 legislation to include all those items.
Section 142 of the 1988 Act allowed magistrates to issue warrants authorising police constables to enter and search premises for flick knives or gravity knives, or for weapons set out in the order made under section 141. If the House accepts the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), as it should, will that put beyond any dispute the ability of a police officer to arrest in the street someone whom he finds in possession of one of the weapons in question? It may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said, that the weapons would be caught in the generality of the measure.

Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend said that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 extended the 1959 legislation. If so, and if a flick knife is an
article with blade or point",
as I believe it is, I cannot see the need for the amendment.

Mr. Greenway: The 1988 Act, in extending the 1959 legislation, included a long list of other items that do not necessarily have a blade or point, such as
the weapon sometimes known as a 'telescopic truncheon', being a truncheon which extends automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device
and
the weapon sometimes known as a 'blowpipe' or 'blow gun'."
On the face of it, such weapons would not be caught by the general description of an
article with blade or point".
If the Bill's purpose is to put on a proper footing the power of the police to stop, search and arrest in a public place, and given that the 1988 Act allowed magistrates to issue warrants rather than give the power of stop, search and arrest, we ought to a do a belt-and-braces job and make sure that the power of arrest is included. I doubt that the House will have the opportunity to consider the matter again for some considerable time, so I am glad to see so many of my hon. Friends in their places. It is important to get the Bill right, and I hope that my explanation of my understanding of the law will assist the House.

Sir Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has initiated and advocated an important point, ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Clause 1 refers to arrest without warrant for carrying offensive weapons, and in speaking to it I must declare that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
Amendment No. 1 would make it clear without doubt that the legislation relating to flick knives will carry a similar power of arrest as proposed in respect of other offensive weapons in the Bill. That sensible provision would be widely welcomed by police forces throughout the country. The amendment does not require lengthy consideration, but it is evident that flick or gravity knives present a problem, and the Bill addresses the dangerous knife culture that has developed in this country. I hope that the House will be disposed to support my hon. Friend's amendment.

Lady Olga Maitland: I reject amendment No. 1, but not with any great enthusiasm.

The amendment would give the police the power of summary arrest in relation to the offence of manufacturing or selling a flick knife or gravity knife. I sympathise with the spirit behind the amendment, and it is understandable that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) wants to be tough on the manufacturing or selling of flick knives or gravity knives. They are vicious and create appalling harm, so why not arrest on the spot persons who peddle, sell or manufacture those weapons? Why not close the loophole? Why not make a belt-and-braces amendment? That all sounds so logical.
Such weapons are invariably smuggled into this country, largely from France—where they are legally obtained over the counter. Even if a seller of such weapons is caught in this country, which I regret is rare, the offence does not qualify for the emergency action of immediate arrest and interview at the police station. Selling is a static activity. It causes no immediate harm, so the offence of selling such weapons is dealt with by a summons. The vendor is easily traceable by virtue of his premises.
The danger comes when a weapon is in the hands of the purchaser and from what he might do when he goes out of the shop into the street. If he is then found carrying a flick knife or gravity knife, which are banned under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, he can be arrested on the spot. In any case, there is a flaw in the drafting, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has limited the scope to gravity knives and flick knives. Why did he not include butterfly knives and the rest of the 14 weapons already banned under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?
The amendment would extend the power of summary arrest to the offence under section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which makes it an offence to import, manufacture or sell a flick knife or gravity knife. Most of us have a rough understanding of what a flick knife is—a knife or blade that opens automatically when a button is pushed. A gravity knife is similar, except that the blade is released by the force of gravity and what the 1959 Act describes as the "application of centrifugal force". The offence under section 1 of the 1959 Act is not in the same category as that of carrying an offensive weapon or knife.
First, selling is an absolute offence and it is therefore less difficult to establish whether an offence has been committed. Next, the offence will not normally have been committed in the street, but at a fixed address—the seller's shop. That means that the offender is easily traced, and interviewing can be carried out on his premises. There is no difficulty in keeping tabs on the offender—he is there.
The force of the amendment should be put in the context of the number of recorded convictions. It is very rarely that vendors are found to be selling such weapons. Indeed, there was a total of only five prosecutions in 1994 and one in 1993. In the circumstances, I do not think that it would be appropriate to make the offence arrestable. I therefore reject the amendment.

Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on promoting the Bill, which I believe is much needed in the light of recent tragic events of which we are all aware. The heart of her Bill is, of course, clause 1. The important point is that the clause is about the carrying of offensive weapons.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) first introduced amendment No. 1, I had thought that section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 also referred to the carrying of offensive weapons, and that is why I thought that the amendment might be unnecessary. If all that we were talking about was the carrying of offensive weapons, that would be covered by clause 1 as it stands. My hon. Friend was, as I understand the position, referring only to flick knives and one other kind of dangerous knife.
I now appreciate, in the light of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, that the 1959 Act is about the manufacture and sale of offensive weapons. The amendment would therefore have the effect of widening considerably the remit and the scope of clause 1. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend that that was not really the original object of her Bill, because she seeks to give to the police the power to arrest without warrant, in the street or on school premises, in circumstances in which they have good reason to believe that a weapon might be about to be used immediately. That is a very different proposition from somebody either manufacturing or selling one of those weapons. Serious though that offence is, it does not involve the immediate intention of using the weapon to cause harm. The amendment would extend the scope of clause, and on balance I believe that we should not accept it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to deal with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I can assure him—and the point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—that the carrying of any offensive weapon, including flick knives and gravity knives, which is prohibited by the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, will be arrestable under clause 1. The amendment would make the sale or manufacture of such weapons arrestable.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), now that he has heard what has been said, will feel able to withdraw the amendment. We all wish to take strong action against knife-related crime, and if there were an operational justification for the amendment, we would need to consider it seriously, but the amendment would widen the provision considerably and we would end up with a measure that was too strong for the circumstances that are envisaged.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out that the existing legislation makes the carrying of flick knives an arrestable offence, so the sanctions and provisions of the Bill will apply as much to flick knives as to other offensive weapons. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to air such an important matter and for the assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

OFFENCE OF HAVING ARTICLE WITH BLADE OR POINT ON SCHOOL PREMISES ETC.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 38, leave out from 'reasons' to the end of line 39.
The amendment would affect clause 4, which was added in Committee for very good reason, because it deals with the carrying of bladed articles in schools. I wish, in passing, to make it clear that I fully support the clause and I was delighted that it was added. It deals specifically with the sort of violent incidents in schools that have caused so much concern to the nation of late. It also has some bearing on one of the motivations behind the Bill, which was the unfortunate murder of headmaster Philip Lawrence, although that took place just outside school premises.
Because clause 4 was added in Committee, the House did not have the opportunity to consider it on Second Reading or to table amendments to it in Committee. For that reason, I tabled the amendment today. It would strike out subsection (4)(d), which is a reference to national costume. To explain the relevance of that, I need briefly to refer to the earlier part of the clause.
The main purpose of the clause is to make a specific offence of the carrying of bladed articles—which are banned under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953—on school premises. The clause also specifies exemptions or clear defences on those two offences, and subsection (3) provides the general defence of being able
to prove … good reason or lawful authority for having the article or weapon … on the premises".
Subsection (4) extends the defence to provide specific defences. In my view, most genuine defences would be covered legitimately by subsection (3), so I slightly question the need for subsection (4) at all. I assume that it is included to clarify the situation for people who, quite legitimately, carry pointed instruments or weapons, which action would otherwise constitute an offence. The four specific additional defences are defined as follows:

"(a) for use at work,
(b) for educational purposes,
(c) for religious reasons, or
(d) as part of any national costume."

I seek to remove paragraph (d).
It would seem that the wearing of the Sikh kirpan would be fully covered by subsection (4)(c), if it were not covered, as I believe it probably would be, by subsection (3). There will be examples of individuals wearing the full Sikh regalia in schools, and the kirpan is part of that regalia. The Sikh community inherits rich cultural and national traditions that are linked to religion, and the wearing of various garments is a requirement for strict adherence to the Sikh religion.
10 am 
I wish to do nothing to detract from the ability of a Sikh to carry out his religious observances. They are a fine body of people and I would hate to see either their religion or their tradition inhibited in any way. I believe, however, that Sikhs would be fully protected by subsection (4)(c) as a result of a religious imperative. I do not believe that the removal of subsection (4)(d) would have any impact on them.
That leaves us with a simple question: to what would subsection (4)(d) apply? I need to be thoroughly convinced that there is a good and overwhelming reason for the specific reference to "national costume" to be included. I have nothing against the wearing of national costume.
As something of a romantic, I rather approve of people dancing or walking around in various national costumes. I would hate in any sense to be destructive of tradition.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman seems almost to be ridiculing his amendment. Is he aware that the amendment has been seen in some quarters as an attempt to inhibit the wearing of the Scottish national costume and the purely ceremonial element that is involved in the wearing of that dress? Is he not diminishing respect for that costume and that activity in the rather flippant way in which he is introducing the amendment?

Mr. Merchant: I fail to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am not being flippant. I made it clear that I took national tradition seriously, otherwise I would have not made the remarks that I did. As for Scotland, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have observed that the amendment does not apply to the relevant area of Scottish law. The amendment is directed to English law.

Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many Scots wish to wear their national costume in England and Wales? Therefore, the amendment applies to citizens of the United Kingdom when they are seeking to wear Scottish national costume in England and Wales. Is the hon. Gentleman serious, or is he intent on arguing in support of the amendment to take up time, only to withdraw it?

Mr. Merchant: I am concerned about these matters. I am aware that there are Scotsmen in England who wear national costume. I am not aware, however, that that happens very often in English schools. To the extent that it does, I believe that there would be protection in any event.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my hon. Friend ignore the filibustering attempt of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is clearly trying to disrupt the argument? There is a distinction between United Kingdom national costumes, such as the Scottish costume and the equipment that is worn with it, and the national costumes of other countries. Is subsection (4)(d) an attempt to protect Greek evzones who wear their costume? I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the distinction between United Kingdom national costumes and national costumes of other countries.

Mr. Merchant: That is an extremely relevant point, as is that of weapons that are linked with national costume.
I shall pose three questions that I think are relevant to the amendment. First, are there clear and specific examples that show it to be necessary for someone to attend school premises wearing a national dress that has, as an essential part of it, a sharp or bladed object?

Mr. Bill Walker: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to pipe bands, which regularly appear on school premises throughout the United Kingdom. An essential part of a pipe band's proper costume or outfit—highland dress—is the skean-dhu. I wear it on school premises and in Parliament.

Mr. Merchant: No doubt my hon. Friend also wears it in the street from time to time. I feel sure, however, that he would not fall foul of the main part of the Bill, even though there is no specific exemption for national costume in the rest of the Bill.
I believe that Scottish pipe bands would be absolutely and fully covered by parts of the Bill other than subsection (4)(d). For example, they would be covered by subsection (3), because they would be able to prove that they had "good reason" for wearing a national costume, including the skean-dhu. If not, they would be able to illustrate that the full costume was being worn for "educational purposes". Pipe bands would not walk on to school premises out of a whim. No doubt they would have been invited. There would be a good educational reason for their being on the premises. They would probably not be able to defend themselves for "religious reasons", even though I know that many Scotsmen—especially highlanders—feel extremely strongly about their national costume.
I return to the three questions that I have been attempting to pose for the past five minutes. First, are there relevant examples that show the absolute necessity of subsection (4)(d)? I question that. Secondly, if people are wearing national costumes at school, why is that? If there is a good educational reason, that is fine. But are we really saying that we want to encourage those attending school to wear an array of national costumes from different parts of the world? That would be inadvisable in itself. Thirdly, is it always necessary to carry a weapon as part of a national costume? Given the various degrees to which I have been pressed over the past few minutes, I exclude the Scots.
There have been many precedents created for the display of national costumes. There have been some exemptions for usual practice in occupations that require a uniform to be worn. In those instances, there has nearly always been a specific reason. For example, railway conductors have long been allowed, if they are genuine Sikhs, to wear the required items to which I have referred. That exemption has not been extended to people who happen, on a whim, to wish to wear a national costume. We do not see bus conductors wearing Dutch clogs, for example, or Lederhosen. It would be rather absurd if they were allowed to do so. A schoolteacher would not be especially well thought of if he suddenly took to arriving at school and conducting lessons dressed in Lederhosen and wearing Dutch clogs, not necessarily together. There is a clear distinction between national costume and clothes that are part of religious observance.
There will of course be exceptions, and no doubt a school might wish, as part of its curriculum, to show national costume. A school might have a day on which people would be encouraged to dress in national costume as part of a history lesson or for cultural studies, and that would be covered under "legitimate educational purposes". In the vast majority of cases, however, the legislation would not even begin to apply because there would be no likelihood of sharp instruments being carried.
I should like, finally, to refer to Scotland and to the Scots, although my remarks have been anticipated to some extent. I stress that I deliberately did not table an amendment to the latter part of the Bill, which refers to Scottish law, because I take seriously the matter of Scottish national costume. I accept that national costume is regarded differently in Scotland, and I can think of no reason why it should not be so regarded under the law.
Scottish costume requires the carrying of the skean-dhu, which might be ruled, in other circumstances, as contrary to the Bill—under clause 4 or elsewhere—because it is of course a sharp and pointed instrument. I do not have a great deal of experience of how sharp and pointed it is—perhaps luckily. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) will no doubt be able to enlighten us on that point.
My hon. Friend might also be able to explain why it is necessary to carry the skean-dhu as part of national costume. Sometimes I wonder whether it is entirely necessary, or whether it might be more sensitive for a Scotsman visiting a school not to include it as part of his national dress. I am willing to be corrected on that point if I can be assured that wearing a skean-dhu is absolutely essential, and that a Scotsman would feel naked without that part of his dress.
I think that a Scotsman would still find that there was little doubt that he would be able to defend himself fully against any absurd charge that might be attempted under the Bill, either under subsection (4)(d) or under any of the other clauses to which I have referred. Therefore, Scotsmen, however sensitive they may be about it, need not feel threatened in any sense by my amendment.
For all those reasons, I argue that subsection (4)(d) is unnecessary. This is a probing amendment, to the extent that I am asking to be convinced that it is necessary. I cannot think of any convincing argument that it is, but I have a sufficiently open mind to allow myself to be persuaded, if other hon. Members are able to do so.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall speak against this amendment, which will not surprise the House, and take up the challenge thrown at me by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant).Perhaps he will now be able to understand why we Scots regularly have no remind everyone it was our king who came down to sit on the Union throne and why, from time to time, we have to remind everyone that the Union between Scotland and England was voluntary. There may have been an element of bribery involved in it, but the Union was made by voluntary agreement.
In forging that Union, the Scots brought to the United Kingdom a certain colour and a certain heroism—which was found on battlefields, to the great advantage of the Union. Part of that Scottish tradition is the wearing of highland dress. I underline the fact that we are talking about highland dress, which is not worn by all Scots.

Lady Olga Maitland: Pity.

Mr. Walker: Yes, it is a pity.
One can, therefore, recognise that there is a great danger of alienating a part of a minority in the United Kingdom. We live in a world in which minority interests have to be considered with great care; we constantly see people introducing legislation to protect minorities. I am a minority of a minority in many ways, because not only am I a highland Scot but I am a highland Scottish Conservative Scot, and we really are a minority.
I am one of the few Scots who come to the House fairly regularly wearing my national dress. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that I always wear it in matters in which the scouts have an interest because scouts throughout Scotland regularly wear highland dress.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend clarify something for me? I understood from books of Scottish etiquette that the kilt should never be worn below the highland line.

Mr. Walker: That was probably written by a Campbell. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Scots were on both sides at Culloden. As is often the way with the Scots, they hedged their bets—which was reason for sending our king down to sit on the throne. The truth is that the Scots always wear the appropriate dress when facing the enemy.

Mr. David Nicholson: I hate to spoil my hon. Friend's paean in support of the highlanders, but is not it true that at Culloden there were more Scots in the Duke of Cumberland's army than in the prince's army?

Mr. Walker: That was why the king's army won. I do not know why anyone should be surprised about that. That was the most astonishing intervention. The king's army would not have won if there had not been more Scots on Cumberland's side. So that there is no doubt on this matter, I should tell my hon. Friend that my mother's side was on the king's side and my father's side was on the losing side. Such situations were not uncommon in the highlands and among those who married lowlanders.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—it is a very important point—that the highland regiments, until well into the second world war, went into battle wearing the kilt, as they did in the first world war and in all earlier campaigns. I ask him: how can anyone possibly suggest that it was not proper to be wearing the kilt south of wherever? As I recall, most campaigns were fought far south of wherever. Scots all over the world, and particularly in England, demonstrate at every opportunity the fact that we reached an agreement on the Union, of which we are proud to be part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham properly asked whether it would be right to remove the skean-dhu—the weapon with which he is concerned. The skean-dhu should be worn in the stocking and should not be unsheathed in public. I have occasionally shown my grandfather's skean-dhu, which is the one that I wear. He wore it during the Boer war campaign, the first world war in Mesopotamia and in two tours in India, when he was in the Black Watch.
We wear the skean-dhus because they are much more than symbols. They reflect family inheritance and tradition, and they cannot easily be replaced. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham suggests that it should not be worn and asks whether one would feel naked without it. If one were not to wear it, one would feel that one was not continuing the traditions that make us what we are—beautifully different, yet part of this collective whole called the United Kingdom.
Given the opportunity, I shall in a later debate deal with the question of this beautiful United Kingdom of which I am proud to be part. I am proud to be part of it because


I am in a minority of a minority. I am a highland Conservative Scot, which is why I have to demonstrate clearly to the vast majority who are not of my background that we Scots have contributed massively to the Union.
It rarely, if ever, happens that the skean-dhu is unsheathed in public. I have the police's assurance on that, because the matter arose some years ago when we were debating legislation proposed by my former right hon. Friend who came from Grantham. I tabled an amendment to ensure that the skean-dhu was not covered by the type of provision that we are debating again today.
My advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is that there are no problems with the skean-dhu. There is no history of Scottish boys or members of school pipe bands behaving badly, and, "If it's not broke, you don't mend it."

Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) failed to advise us what possible mischief there would be in someone being on school premises with what might be regarded as an offensive weapon were it not part of a national costume. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) said, we have to consider whether there is the slightest chance of someone removing a skean-dhu from his highland dress and using it as a weapon of assault.

Mr. Merchant: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I wish to develop this point a little further.
I wish to relate an incident that occurred during my police career in the 1960s and which, on the face of it, might support the amendment. In reality, however, it serves to prove that my hon. Friend's proposition is ridiculous.
I had just walked into the front office of the Savile Row police station just after midnight, when there was an emergency call to go to the Westbury hotel around the corner in Conduit street where a brawl was taking place in the foyer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surely not."] Yes, indeed, at the Westbury hotel.
Hon. Members will perhaps be surprised to learn that, when I arrived at the hotel, a mother and father of a punch-up was going on. It involved mainly gentlemen in dinner jackets, but one in highland dress. I, a bold 19-year-old policeman, tried to stop this fracas in one of our leading west end hotels. I was roundly assaulted with kicks to various parts of my anatomy, one of which I would not wish to mention in front of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
At that point, something strange happened. The gentleman in highland removed the skean-dhu from his stocking and attacked the throat of the gentleman who had kicked me in a particular part of my anatomy. I subsequently managed to arrest both gentlemen and, at the police station, they were charged with various offences relating to drunk and disorderly behaviour. On the advice of the station sergeant, the gentleman in highland dress was charged with an offence relating to the skean-dhu. The word "skean-dhu" appeared on the charge sheet.
In those days, it was usual for people who had been charged to appear at Bow Street or Marlborough Street magistrates courts the following day. The CID officer on

duty that morning would consider any charges. When he saw the reference to the skean-dhu on the charge sheet. his first impressions was that I had been over-zealous and that the charge had been made simply because the poor fellow had the skean-dhu in his stocking. I assured him that that was not the case and that it was fortunate that the skean-dhu had not entered the other gentleman's throat.
Suffice it to say that when the gentlemen appeared in court that morning, it transpired that they both had impeccable professional qualifications. They had been at an annual dinner when an argument had broken out. Everyone there had been the worse for drink. They pleaded guilty to the offence and were roundly condemned and thoroughly ashamed of their behaviour.
I do not think that I have ever told that story in public before, and certainly not in the House. The point of my telling it is to emphasise that we are being asked to consider the likelihood of such an event happening on school premises if someone were wearing his national costume and had a skean-dhu in his stocking.

Mr. Merchant: A person intent on mischief would not be allowed to take a weapon into a school if he were dressed like me. If he tried to do so. he would immediately fall foul of the Bill's provisions. However, does my hon. Friend accept that such a person could put on any national costume—there is nothing in the Bill to say that he is not entitled to do so—and thus enter the school brandishing a knife without falling foul of the Bill?

Mr. Greenway: That is an absurd proposition. We have to have a sense of proportion.
In the story which I related, the Scottish gentleman who went to dinner at the Westbury hotel in highland costume was not committing an offence by having a skean-dhu in his stocking, but the moment he removed it from his stocking and attacked the other gentleman's throat, any defence that allowed him to carry that implement went out the window.
I can tell from the way that the House listened with care and interest to my story—I hope that I shall not be accused of filibustering or of being out of order for having told it, because it goes to the heart of the matter that we are debating—that the very idea that such an event could occur on school premises is patently absurd. In the extremely unlikely event of someone drawing that knife in anger from his stocking on school premises or elsewhere, he would lose the protection of any possible exemptions and would be guilty of a serious offence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham was right to raise the matter, because we must be sure to get the legislation right, but I hope that, on reflection, the House will not support the amendment.

Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) made a powerful and emotive case against the amendment. It is incumbent on those of us who represent English constituencies to listen to him carefully. There are many Scotsmen in England and, no doubt, many teaching in English schools. From time to time, they may choose to wear their national costume. If my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) examines the subsection that he seeks to


amend, he will see that national costume provides a defence only if the person wearing it has no ulterior motive.
I listened carefully to the account by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) of his experience when, some time in the 1960s, as a 19-year-old policeman. he was called to the Westbury hotel after midnight. That fascinating episode from his past was also extremely relevant.
In fact, the defence that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam inserted in Committee, when clause 4 was first introduced, is not novel. It also appears in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which refers to a "public place". As the 1988 Act is a consolidating measure, even in the 1960s—when my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was serving at Savile Row police station—the gentleman wearing Scottish national costume would have had a defence had he not removed the offensive weapon from his sock. The point of my hon. Friend's story was that he did remove it. Until that point—or, perhaps, until the point at which he had consumed too much—he had not intended to do any damage with the weapon that he had decided to carry with him. It was part of his national costume, and posed a threat only when he removed it with intent to injure another person.
I strongly believe that we should keep legislation as simple as possible. Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, on which I believe clause 4 is modelled, provides the same defences. It refers to "use at work", "religious reasons" and "national costume". I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has added "educational purposes", which is understandable in the context of schools.
I feel that the clause should be left as it is. I am glad that the Committee decided to extend the Bill by referring to schools; it is not entirely clear to me that a school is a public place, although a public place is defined in section 139 of the 1988 Act as a
place to which … the public have … access".
There could be some debate about whether the public do have access to schools. Clause 4 is a welcome addition to the legislation, and I feel that in this respect, at least, we should leave it unamended.

Lady Olga Maitland: I understand the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) tabled his amendment, but by the time he finished his speech I think we felt that he had not been all that enthusiastic in the first place, because he made so many exceptions. The arguments against the amendment are borne out by the experiences described by my very dear hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker)—another Scot; we have two on the Front Bench today—and the telling incident in the Westbury hotel described by the erstwhile detective constable, currently my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Those experiences tell their own story; sometimes the law can seem absurd, or, indeed, an ass. If the amendment were accepted—I hope that it will not be—we would find ourselves in an invidious position.
The intention behind clause 4 is simple: it extends to school premises the provisions that already apply to the carrying of offensive weapons, such as knives, in public.

I believe that, unless there are good reasons not to, we should strive for consistency between what happens in public and what happens on school premises.
The existing offence of carrying a knife in public is accompanied by a number of defences for anyone charged with such an offence. There is the general defence that the person concerned had a good reason, or lawful authority, to carry the knife. That makes good sense in regard to, for instance, someone carrying home a kitchen knife that he or she has just bought, or carrying a knife with which to cut cabbages on the allotment. A keen fisherman might carry a knife along with his rod and tackle.
There are also three specific defences. The person charged may be able to prove that he was carrying the article for use at work; he may be a carpet layer, for example, although that defence is somewhat over-used and, indeed, abused. He may be able to prove that he was carrying it for religious reasons, or as part of a national costume.
In extending the offence to carrying an offensive weapon to schools, we have added a specific defence where the person concerned can prove that he was carrying the article for educational purposes. He may be a teacher, or, indeed, a pupil, equipped with a tool with which to work in arts and crafts or cookery classes. The justification is obvious.
The amendment proposes to remove the specific defence in relation to national costume. I note that a similar amendment has not been tabled in relation to Scotland. I think I understand why—my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside gave us a very good description—but the traditional Scottish dagger, or skean-dhu, is part of that country's national costume, and there will be occasions on which it is worn on school premises: open days, speech days and, in boarding schools, on Sundays. I have seen them worn in church. Although a person wearing highland dress, complete with skean-dhu, would not often enter school premises in England and Wales, he could do so.
What is more likely is the extraordinary development that Scottish country dancing classes involving full highland dress, including the skean-dhu, would suddenly become unlawful. Pupils from a Scottish school visiting a school south of the border might well wish to go formally dressed as a courtesy, but under the amendment that could be construed as an offence. Similarly, pupils might take part in a school play in national dress, including a dagger.

Mr. Merchant: Would there not be a perfect defence in such circumstances under "educational purposes", if not under
good reason or lawful authority"?

Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend is introducing yet more exceptions. There are so many exceptions that I wonder how often we would find that there was a rule.
The amendment is not logical, and could cause serious difficulties. If we are to keep the legislation as harmonious as possible, we should retain that specific defence in England and Wales. With great regret, I must tell my hon. Friend that I reject his amendment.

Mr. Kirkhope: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has just said. We should not forget that there


are many people of Scottish ancestry in this country. I include myself in that. My only problem is that, having heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), I am not sure into what grade or category I fall. I am descended from a lowland rather than a highland family. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside will not be too prejudiced against me. There is some argument about whether I am entitled to wear a hunting Stewart tartan or whether, must be confined to the Galloway tartan of my own family.

Mr. Bill Walker: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of Scots—like everyone else in the United Kingdom—lived on the land, and the highlands were very densely populated. After the 1745 rebellion, the highland clearances and the industrial revolution, that changed. My hon. Friend is probably descended from highlanders.

Mr. Kirkhope: My family has been progressively moving further south all the time. My hon. Friend forces me into an embarrassing admission. Having survived in the Scottish lowlands, I understand that in some murky episode my family removed itself to the north-east of England, to Newcastle, apparently with some cattle and other items, which I suspect we have never returned. The point of relating that is simply to enable me to say that I was privileged to go to a good school in Newcastle, the Royal grammar school, at which some of the pupils were of Scottish extraction.
I was involved in Scottish country dancing, a fine social activity, and we were visited many times by boys from other excellent schools in Scotland. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition went to Fettes college, but I am not sure whether he ever visited the Royal grammar school or came to England in full Scottish dress, which I think he may be entitled to wear. I have related all that because it underlines the fact that the amendment would not be helpful. Although we are discussing pupils, we should not forget that many people are on school premises out of school hours for various purposes in which such national dress could play a part.
There should be consistency between knife carrying in public and on school premises. In that context, it is wrong for someone to have a defence for carrying a knife in public but not for carrying it on school premises. We have had some merriment and some tuition from my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside about Scottish history and folklore, but I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Merchant: The debate has been skilfully and quickly turned into one about the Scots, which was not my intention when I moved the amendment. I am aware of the sensitivities and should like to make it clear that I have nothing against the Scots or Scottish national dress, which is an important, colourful and historical part of our overall United Kingdom culture. I was trying to make some serious points about what I thought could be a loophole in the Bill, and I am glad that at least I have been able to precipitate a reasonably full debate on the subject.
There have been many references to minorities. I distinctly appear to have become a minority of one on this issue and do not seem to have much hope of pressing my

amendment. I suspect that I am surrounded by a majority of Scots, albeit wearing suits, but at least I am not like the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who maintains his solitary vigil in the knowledge that he has a majority of one, on his side at least.
If the clause has to remain, I would prefer it to read "as part of that person's national costume" rather than "any national costume", but it is clearly too late to introduce an amendment on that. I hope that people will not use the clause as a loophole to avoid the Bill's provisions. Above all, I do not wish to be unhelpful—the magical word that was used by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—or to upset or frustrate the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). As she knows, I supported the Bill at every stage and spoke strongly in support of it on Second Reading and in Committee. As she says that the amendment would frustrate the Bill's purpose, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Merchant: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 43, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 44.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 3, line 3, leave out
'or a fine, or both'.
No. 15, in page 3, line 6, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 7.
No. 16, in page 3, line 10, leave out
'or a fine, or both'.
No. 17, in page 4, line 10, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 11.
No. 18, in page 4, line 14, leave out
'or a fine, or both'.
No. 19, in page 4, line 17, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 18.
No. 20, in page 4, line 21, leave out
'or a fine, or both'.

Mr. Merchant: The amendment is straightforward and simple and I shall not detain the House. The linked amendments have exactly the same purpose, which is to remove the fine option from the offences related to the issue that we have been discussing, namely, the carrying of various types of weapons in schools. The amendments apply to England and Scotland, which are listed in the measure.
Removing the option of a fine leaves the penalty as a mandatory prison sentence. However, this is not so harsh as it may sound because the term of imprisonment that would be applicable for the offences will not exceed six months, two years or four years, depending on the clause to which reference is made.
10.45 am 
I shall not detain the House by going into the detail of which offence attracts which punishment. My sole purpose is to say that maximum prison sentences are specified and that it is clearly up to the court to show flexibility according to the circumstances, detail and


nature of the offence. Courts would be able to impose a light sentence if that appeared to be relevant, which means that there is room for discretion.
I move the amendment because at present the proposed sentence is identical to that which applies for offences that are committed outside a school. In my view it would be appropriate to have a tougher sentence when an offence is committed in a school. The reason is simple and relates to the environment in a school. A large number of children are present at one time without their parents, and for that reason they need extra protection. I cast no aspersions on our highly professional teaching staff and others who look after children in school. In the vast majority of cases it works perfectly satisfactorily and safely. Nevertheless, the ratio of adults to children is normally considerably lower than when children are with their parents. There is also the specific sensitivity and the potential target that a school may present to those who wish to cause mischief. I recently quoted two recent examples of that and there are many more.
The Bill needs an extra mark of protection for children who are potentially under threat. We need tougher deterrents and greater punishment and deterrence is the issue that I wish to stress. By making it clear to anyone who contemplates breaking the law that there is an automatic prison sentence, the deterrent value is that much increased. The amendments would strengthen the Bill and are based on good reason.

Mr. John Greenway: The amendment is not a good idea. Again I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). He tried to explain that the courts would have discretion and spoke about a maximum rather than a mandatory sentence. None the less, removal of the fine option would be extremely serious and would leave a court with no option but to impose a custodial sentence. We should be clear on two points. First, with the exception of the exemptions that we debated earlier, this is an absolute offence. There is no requirement to prove that someone entering school premises with a knife had any intention of using it for any purpose. We all know why we are doing it and it is right that we should, but it is an absolute offence.
I do not want to give in any detail an example of the innocent carrying of a knife or weapon on school premises where someone would be caught under the clause, but it could happen, not least because, as the previous debate made clear, school premises are not used exclusively as schools. They are used for social events, especially secondary schools, and at weekends and during school breaks, so we must be careful. If we think about it clearly, the amendment would impose an absolute offence with an absolute certainty of imprisonment, however brief. That is not a good idea.
Secondly, is it always correct to say that imprisonment is a greater deterrent than a financial penalty? I am not sure that it always is. A youth in his late teens or early 20s, who is earning an extremely good income, may go to an event or dance held for his local football team on school premises. He could have his knife in his pocket and be found guilty of this offence. It would be ridiculous to say that the possibility not just of imprisonment, but of hitting his pocket would have no deterrent effect. It is not one or the other: it is the possibility of both that would be deleted by the amendment.
For those reasons, the amendment is not a good idea, however well intentioned it might have been. I return to the point that I made in the discussion on the previous amendment. Were anyone to be so foolish as publicly to draw a knife or pointed instrument from their person on any premises, the powers in the clause to impose extremely tough penalties can be used. The amendment imposes a penalty simply for an absolute offence of someone having such weapons on their person. It is possible that a relatively innocent offence could be committed.
It is right that we should accept the Bill, but equally it is right that we should allow the courts sufficient discretion to deal with the circumstances with which they will be confronted whenever this charge is brought, which we cannot necessarily foresee today.

Mr. Tim Smith: At about the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was Detective Constable Greenway operating out of Savile Row police station, I was a young law student studying what Oxford university pompously calls jurisprudence, and I have a vestigial memory of some of the basics of criminal law. One of the things that we learned was that normally the criminal offence consists of two parts: a guilty act and a guilty mind. My hon. Friend has made the point that this is an absolute offence: there is no mens rea. It means, in effect, that the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defence. That is why the defences in the clause and in section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are so important.
If all that one has to prove is that someone was carrying an offensive weapon, it is not reasonable that the only penalty that could be imposed on such a person is a prison sentence. At present if someone is convicted of an offence under section 139 of the 1988 Act, the court cannot impose a prison sentence; only a fine can be imposed. Clause 3 of the Bill increases the penalties.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) is doing. She is saying that Parliament believes that the position is now sufficiently serious that in certain circumstances the courts should have available to them the possible imposition of a prison sentence, but the Bill makes it clear that, until it becomes an Act of Parliament and is brought into effect, the only penalty that can be imposed is a fine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) wants us somehow to distinguish school premises from public places generally. I understand why he says that. We all know of the recent horrific cases on school premises and of criminal offences close to school premises involving school teachers. We all share his deep concern about that, but we cannot therefore conclude that in the case of school premises the possibility of a fine should be ruled out altogether.
In those circumstances, taking into account the fact that only a prison sentence is available, not only injuries, but perhaps magistrates might be reluctant to convict in certain circumstances. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale that it would be wrong to remove from the courts the discretion to decide what should be the appropriate penalty in any case.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. Earlier, I mentioned the wearing of the skean-dhu. I was reminded by the hon. Member for


Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of an interesting event that occurred in my life, where discretion was important and where certain leeway was required.
I was to be joined at the United States Democratic convention in San Francisco by my wife and daughters. Before they boarded the aircraft at Heathrow airport, they were advised by the chap who was looking after them that Bill had been arrested in San Francisco because he was wearing a knife. The Democrats got themselves in an awful mess. Eventually, I met the head of the secret service, who was in charge of security. Being a sensible fellow, he said to me, "You and I had better come to an agreement and an understanding. You can come in the morning wearing your knife. They'll tannoy for me and I'll come. You will hand over your skean-dhu to me publicly so that everyone can see and then we'll go off for a cup of coffee and I will give you it back."
My arrest hit the headlines in the United Kingdom. I followed that with a visit to the Republican convention—this is important because this is where discretion comes in. The Republicans were determined that I was not going to be arrested at their convention, so they advised everyone at the convention that this chap wearing the kilt and the knife in his stocking was to be treated with kid gloves—British Member of Parliament and all that. Unfortunately, they forgot to tell the Dallas police. In Dallas, people can wear as many guns as they like, but they are not allowed to wear knives in public and I was arrested by the Dallas police on my way into the convention centre. They called up on their radio telephone and said, "We've got this guy, " and all the rest of it. Eventually, it got through to the head of the police. He came on the radio to the car and said, "Look. We had better handle this with great care. This guy is a British Member of Parliament." So they photographed me dressed in my finery with my knife in my stocking and dropped the arrest charges. This is the discretion part. They realised that, although it contravened the law in that part of Texas, they had someone wearing his national dress. They took a photograph of me and distributed it to every policeman in Dallas to make sure that I was not arrested again. It is that sort of discretion that the courts need as innocent individuals could otherwise be caught by the Bill.

Mr. Michael: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that his photograph was distributed for the purpose he suggested? It is more usual for photographs of individuals to be distributed widely within a police force for a rather different purpose.

Mr. Walker: It might have been because I am such a good looking fellow and the police thought that all the ladies of Dallas should know that I was visiting—like pop stars and other people of substance. It probably had nothing to do with the fact that I was wearing my kilt, with a skean-dhu in my stocking. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was interesting. So far as I am aware, no one has ever found any reason, other than the wearing of my skean-dhu, to distribute my photograph. If he has evidence to the contrary, I would be delighted to hear of it. We could then discuss what a suitable penalty would be.

11 am

Lady Olga Maitland: The remarks of my hon. Friends in response to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) have been of

one mind. We need flexibility and it would be a great mistake to remove the degree of decision making and options that should be available to the courts. Indeed, it would be unusual for the option of a fine not to be available as one of the penalties.
I understand that in 1994 fines were imposed on almost three quarters of offenders sentenced in magistrates courts, covering a very wide range of offences and involving about 1 million people. Six months' imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine are the normal maximum penalties for trial in a magistrates court. The courts must have the power to deal with the whole range of serious incidents that may occur under the proposed offence of carrying an offensive weapon or knife on school premises. Some examples of that offence will be so serious that gaol must be the penalty—there is no doubt about that. That will be especially true where it is clear that the defendant went out intending to stab a victim viciously, not caring whether it caused injury or death.
Nevertheless, there will be offences where there are strong mitigating factors, such as those described by my hon. Friends, which must be regarded as being at the lowest level of seriousness. Indeed, there could be considerable misunderstandings. In those circumstances, it would be wrong to imprison the offender as such a penalty would be quite disproportionate. Without the power to impose a fine, magistrates would often feel obliged to impose very short terms of imprisonment, which could be far less effective than a fine for some offenders, as a fine would hit their pockets very hard. Many of them could not give a hoot about spending a few days in gaol. However, if they do not have very much money and what they do have is regularly docked so that they no longer have beer money, they might think twice.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend know whether there are any precedents for what is being proposed in the amendment? Are there any criminal offences for which magistrates can only send people to prison and cannot fine them?

Lady Olga Maitland: I am not aware of any. I understand that it is not the practice of this country to shackle magistrates or justices in that way.
The amendments are somewhat spurious. It should be remembered that there is a power to override gaol sentences under section 31(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. That gives Crown courts the power to impose fines, of any amount, regardless of any restrictions imposed in specific pieces of legislation. It is also important to remember that providing for a fine in legislation can actually increase the severity of the penalties available. A long gaol sentence together with a fine is obviously more severe than just a prison sentence. Furthermore, it is arguably the case that a large fine may be taken more seriously by the offender than a short prison sentence, depending on the circumstances of the case. I therefore support my hon. Friends' call for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Mr. Kirkhope: I agree with the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and others of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale and for Beaconsfield. We all want strong measures to be taken against knife carriers, but to remove the option to impose a fine or to impose a


fine as well as a prison sentence would not only reduce the flexibility that the courts can exercise, but in some cases, as has been stated by my hon. Friends, it would actually weaken the severity of sentencing.

Mr. Merchant: I hope that I have at least given the House an opportunity to examine, in a little more detail, the nature of the punishment that should fit the crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale felt that it would be inappropriate to have only a prison sentence. Perhaps I take a tougher line on crime than he does. I strongly believe that prison is a tough deterrent—in most cases, the ultimate deterrent—and I am not entirely convinced by the argument that a fine, however unwelcome, can be a tougher way of dealing with offenders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) referred to mens rea. Given the clarity of the offence and the wide knowledge of the existence of this legislation when enacted, as I hope it will be shortly, people—especially youngsters—will know full well that they are committing an offence if they carry a weapon as described. Therefore, it could quite easily be said that if someone is carrying such a weapon, he has a guilty mind as well as carrying out a guilty act. I doubt whether there will be many instances of someone saying, "I had no idea and no intention of breaking the law by carrying this weapon." Hon. Members should remember that we are talking about the carrying of the weapon; we are not referring to any intention that it may be used, which in itself would constitute a separate offence.
I feel strongly that the carrying of knives on school premises is a very serious matter. It happens a great deal more in some areas than hon. Members may be aware. It is therefore incumbent upon us to take a tough line so that we can avoid some of the disasters that have occurred and might occur again.
I make no apology for moving my amendment or for wanting a debate to draw attention to the risks posed by people carrying knives. The House needs to ensure that tough action is taken against such offences. Having said that, I accept that I am once again cast in the role of a minority. Having drawn attention to my point, and its having had a good debate, I hope that at least some of my motives for introducing it will be taken on board.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 15, at end insert—
'(7) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

(a) the reference in subsection (2) above to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is to be construed as a reference to Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; and
(b) the reference in subsection (6) above to section 14(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 is to be construed as a reference to Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
'(4) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland the reference in subsection (1)(b) above to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is to be construed as a reference to Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.'.

No. 6, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
'(1A) In section 172 of that Act (extent), in subsection (3), for "section 139" there is substituted "sections 139 to bE".'.
No. 9, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.
No. 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 39, leave out 'and 3' and insert
', 3 and 4(1), (1A) and (3)'.

Lady Olga Maitland: These amendments fulfil a commitment given by the Minister during the Committee stage on 6 March. He informed the Committee of the intention, which I fully share, to extend to Northern Ireland the new offence of having an article with a blade or point on school premises. That is the effect of the amendment.
The amendment would add subsection (7) to new section 139A—the offence of having a article with blade or point on school premises—of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to provide the relevant adaptions in application of the new section to Northern Ireland. Thus, any reference to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953—which refers to the prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—will be construed as a reference to the equivalent offence in the law of Northern Ireland. That is found in article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which refers to the carrying of offensive weapons in a public place. A similar amendment is made in new section bI of the 1988 Act.
Provision is made for references to section 14(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to be construed as references to article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which contains the definition of a "school" in Northern Ireland. A new clause 4(1A) is inserted to amend the extent section of the 1988 Act to apply to the new sections 139A and 139B to Northern Ireland, and a consequential amendment is made to clause 4(3) as a result.
The amendment fulfils a commitment that my hon. Friend the Minister made in Committee, and I am therefore only too glad to table it on Report. I hope that it will be supported by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Michael: I am happy to confirm the Opposition's support for the amendments. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, it introduces an element of consistency by extending the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland, which is to be welcomed. I am glad that she and the Minister have been able to fulfil the undertaking that was given in Committee.

Mr. Kirkhope: As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, the amendment fulfils a commitment that I made in Committee. I therefore naturally support it, and welcome the support of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).

Amendment agreed to

Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 27, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 4, in page 3, line 28, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.
No. 7, in page 4, line 38, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.
No. 8, in page 4, line 39, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

Lady Olga Maitland: This is another somewhat technical amendment, but important to the overall purpose of the Bill. Its intention is to clear up a small and entirely unintended ambiguity in relation to police powers of seizure of knives and offensive weapons on school premises. It is proposed in clause 4 to extend the offences of carrying a knife or offensive weapon in public to school premises. Those two separate offences are referred to in the proposed new section 139A, subsections (1) and (2), of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in relation to England and Wales. The equivalent Scottish offences are referred to in the proposed new section 49A, subsections (1) and (2), of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.
The problem arises in relation to the associated police power of seizure of a knife or an offensive weapon if an officer discovers such a thing in the course of a search on school premises. The proposed powers of seizure are referred to in subsection (2) of the proposed new section 139B for England and Wales, and subsection (2) of the proposed new section 49B for Scotland. Both provide that a constable may seize an article—I emphasise the word "article"—of a kind described in subsection (1). That may conceivably be taken as omitting the power to seize offensive weapons. The amendment merely rectifies that.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has given a technical explanation of the need for the amendment, but not one that is easily understood by a lay person. Surely the word "article" includes weapons, especially when one considers the context of the Bill and other legislation under consideration. As the Minister is to comment, perhaps he will deal with that point.
I clearly understand that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam wants to ensure that items are not accidentally omitted so that powers given to police officers in the Bill would therefore be faulty. I share that aspiration, but I do not understand why the amendments are necessary. The Minister may not be all that distant from the drafting of the amendments, so I ask him to explain in lay terms why the wording as it stands is not satisfactory and why the word "article", as one would commonly understand it, does not include weapons as a matter of legal definition.

Mr. Kirkhope: One of the problems is that the amendment is essentially technical. I fully understand that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is saying that without the amendment problems may not be caused—but problems could be caused. As the matter is currently framed, it is possible to construe the clause as proposing a police power of seizure for knives, but not for offensive weapons. I am advised that the amendment must be technical.

Mr. Michael: I am not trying to delay the Minister; I am simply trying to understand what is being said. If offensive weapons other than knives are not included,

would the Minister illustrate the sort of articles of which he is thinking? That might make the matter wholly transparent.

Mr. Kirkhope: I cannot really do that because the term "offensive weapons" covers a large range of items. The word "article" does not help us. We believe that the word "article" does include weapons, but we still think that there is a possibility of doubt in legal argument; that is why we are trying to remove the ambiguity. In talking of offensive weapons, a sharpened screwdriver comes to mind, for instance. Nevertheless, the amendment has to be technical. It is important that in such an important measure we should remove any possibility of misunderstanding or ambiguity, and any opportunity for the extension of legal argument and of justice not being done. The amendment is very sensible and, uncontentious and would clarify matters.

Mr. Michael: The Minister's illustration is very helpful. Am I correct in thinking that he is saying that the wording is basically to act as belt and braces, and that it does not change what was intended by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam or those who were originally involved in drafting the Bill or what we understood that we were doing in Committee, and that it is merely to ensure that there is no doubt?

Mr. Kirkhope: I can confirm that. While the hon. Gentleman and I may think that it is perfectly reasonable to interpret the matter in a certain way, lawyers might use the opportunity in certain circumstances to misunderstand the wording unless it is absolutely crystal clear. That is the reason for the amendment, which we support.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 28, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

No. 5, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
'(4) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland the reference in subsection (1)(b) above to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is to be construed as a reference to Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.'.

No. 6, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
'(1A) In section 172 of that Act (extent), in subsection (3), for "section 139" there is substituted "sections 139 to 139B".'

No. 7, in page 4, line 38, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

No. 8, in page 4, line 39, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

No. 9, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.—[Lady Olga Maitland.]

Clause 6

SALE OF KNIVES AND CERTAIN ARTICLES WITH BLADE OR POINT TO PERSONS UNDER SIXTEEN

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 5, line 7, after 'applies', insert
'or who encourages or incites the purchase of an article to which this section applies by or on behalf of a person under the age of sixteen, or who advertises such an article for sale in a way which appears to incite or condone the possession of such an article for violent purposes,'.


The Bill deserves two cheers and it will earn a full three cheers if the amendment is accepted. The amendment is intended to take a grip on the incitement and advertising that have helped to encourage the knife culture, which we all abhor. This point was discussed on Second Reading, and I believe that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was sympathetic to my argument then.
To explain my reference to three cheers, from the beginning, Labour has supported the Bill, which will take a grip on the carrying of knives. A second cheer went up when the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Minister accepted the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, that we should ban the sale of knives to young people under the age of 16. However, we need to go beyond those measures, to take a grip on the knife culture in general, and in particular on those who profit from encouraging impressionable young people to take an unhealthy interest in offensive weapons. That is why we need a ban on the advertising of such weapons. I shall spell out the problem briefly.
On Second Reading, there was agreement on both sides that we needed to control the advertising of guns and weapons generally. Today, the amendment is designed to deal specifically with advertisements that encourage the knife culture. I raised the question of advertising and the mail order of weapons as long ago as the debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to which I proposed amendments, so it is not an issue that has suddenly come out of the blue.
Last year, the shadow Home Secretary brought to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority some advertisements that included other weapons such as guns, but which also specifically included quite horrific weapons with titles such as "Rambo shortsword" and "SAS shoulder holster knife".
In response to the approach by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, Lord Rodgers, the chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, stated specifically that the authority had no powers to ban such advertising. Therefore, since as long ago as the period before Second Reading, Ministers have known that legislation is the only way in which to ban such advertisements and it is disappointing that we have not yet got that point covered in law.
We cannot deal with the whole issue of the advertising of weapons and guns in the Bill, but we can agree to an amendment that would ban advertisements that are specific to the knife culture. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that such weapons can have no legitimate use; there can be no legitimate reason for wandering the streets with something called an "SAS shoulder holster knife" or a "Rambo shortsword".

Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman will remember that we exchanged words on this subject in Committee; we may not have been talking on quite the same subject then. Will he confirm—I have great sympathy for his objective—that it is possible under existing ASA arrangements and the Committee of Advertising Practice codes to prevent advertisements that
appeal to the immature or unstable mind
or are "emotive or aggressive"? That would catch many of the advertisements to which he refers.

Mr. Michael: No, it would not. The code would have an effect on those who observe the code of conduct.

It might have an effect on the responsible end of the press. I am sure that The Times, The Guardian and other major newspapers take note of requirements set down in guidance from the Advertising Standards Authority, but the code does not actually stop anyone putting in such advertisements. Nothing illegal is involved; people do not have to take note of the code. I shall develop that point in a moment, with specific reference to what has been said by the ASA.
The ASA confirmed, after my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred to it the advertisements I mentioned, that it was not considered appropriate to take action on them. It referred them to a working party, and that working party may come up with new words or may strengthen the code of conduct, but that will not control the type of advertisements and virtual incitement that I am talking about.
As I said, we raised the issue on Second Reading, when it was made clear that the ASA was not able to ban advertisements that encouraged people to purchase weapons for the purpose of violence. I make it clear that we are not talking about advertisements in relation to country sports and things of that sort. We are talking about the wording to which I have referred, which is clearly not about sporting or legitimate activities.
On Second Reading and in Committee, I quoted a letter from the ASA in reply to our initial approach to it. The letter states:
It is important to be clear that the Advertising Standards Authority is not in a position to ban such advertisements.
That sentence from the ASA goes to the heart of the question raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). It is clear from the authority itself that it does not have the power to do what the House wants, and that is why an amendment is needed to achieve the desired result. I should perhaps make it clear that that statement was authoritative, because it came from Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who is chairman of the ASA.

Mr. Merchant: I do not want to labour the point, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman entirely appreciates how the ASA works in practice. I was very involved in the advertising industry and had experience of the ASA. The ASA's latest publication, which deals with its research on this subject, says that companies whose advertising is found to be unacceptable or questionable will be asked to make any necessary amendments. I appreciate that that does not have the force of law, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in practice, the ASA's authority is extremely strong in the advertising industry? In 99 per cent. of cases, what it decides to do will be followed by the industry.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman destroys his own case by the words that he quotes. The ASA says that companies "will be asked" to change their advertising. In view of the wording used in advertisements to which I have referred and the motivation of people who would be willing to put such advertisements in public periodicals, I do not believe that such people will respond to being asked rather nicely to amend the wording that they use. That is simply not good enough.
If the hon. Gentleman's own words are not sufficient to destroy his case, I quote again the very specific and authoritative statement by the chairman of the ASA. He says:


It is important to be clear that the Advertising Standards Authority is not in a position to ban such advertisements.
That is absolutely clear and specific.

Sir Michael Shersby: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. Does he agree that many of the advertisements for these horrible knives appear in fringe magazines of one kind and another, which probably never even cross the doorstep of the Advertising Standards Authority, but which are circulated to groups of people whom the advertisers believe will buy the product?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In a conversation that I had with members of the Advertising Standards Authority, they commented on the vast amount of advertising there is and said that it was totally impossible to monitor all of it. It is impossible for them to monitor all mainstream advertising, never mind the fringe periodicals to which the hon. Gentleman refers He is precisely right.
There are vulnerable people who can easily be encouraged in the culture of violence and the knife culture, which give rise to such concern. We are talking about a fringe activity, not about an activity involving masses of people. However, it is those who are vulnerable in some ways and who can become dangerous in other ways if their predilections are encouraged who are the target of fringe advertising. That advertising is my target in the amendment. The hon. Members for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and for Sutton and Cheam are, I believe, sympathetic to that point.
If we were talking about advertisements that appear in major, large-circulation periodicals, there would be no great difficulty, because the pressure of the ASA would discourage them from continuing to accept such advertisements. However, the hon. Member for Uxbridge is absolutely right to say that that is not the target of the amendment. But without the amendment, as Lord Rodgers made clear, the target that we have in mind cannot be tackled by the ASA.
In Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill in 1994, in response to a question of mine, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), said:
The British code of advertising practice includes special provisions on the advertising of weapons so that advertisements for weapons, such as knives, neither condone nor incite violent behaviour".
That is what the hon. Member for Beckenham was referring to, but we now know that the Minister was wrong, because the code cannot extend to the sort of fringe periodicals that are likely to do the damage, because they are circulated in the type of environment that encourages the knife culture.
11.30 am 
The Minister of State continued:
Where advertisements are found to contravene the codes, the Advertising Standards Authority can take steps to rectify the situation as appropriate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1994; c. 1357.]

We now know that the powers of the ASA are not appropriate, but clearly at that time the Minister thought that something should be done about the matter, and erroneously believed that the ASA had the power to intervene. As I said, the ASA has made it clear that it does not have that capacity.
In March, I asked the authority what action it had taken on various advertisements referred to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. The answer was simply that the matter had been referred to a working party. I do not see the point of referring a matter to a working party if the authority does not have the power to deal with those specific issues and the periodicals that advertise such items.
We would end up with a tougher code enjoining The Guardian and The Times in even stricter terms to observe the standards that they observe already. That is patently useless in tackling the development of the knife culture.
There are advertisements generally available in this country that find their way all too easily to impressionable young people, displaying illustrations of weapons that no one could reasonably want for legitimate purposes. They incite people to purchase such weapons for all the wrong reasons. Such advertising should be brought under control, and my amendment at least addresses that specific problem.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is after, but how can he establish whether a generally available advertisement is directed at people under 16? Would it not be more straightforward to say that he really wants to ban advertisements of all kinds?

Mr. Michael: No, but I do want to ban advertisements that encourage the carrying of articles for an offensive or violent purpose, and that is what the amendment would do. The point is that those who use such advertising are seeking impressionable people, especially impressionable young people. That is where the tap ought to be turned off, and that is what my amendment would do.
The clause as it stands puts the onus on those in the retail trade, especially people who specialise in country sports, to ensure that they do not sell weapons to young people under 16. It is right that they should have that responsibility, but the stable door is still left wide open on mail order. There is no control over the type of articles advertised that can be purchased by youngsters through mail order. That is why the amendment is needed.
That may be irresponsible advertising, and it is not controlled. The mail order advertisers are not controlled as the Bill will control the retail trade in general, so there is a wide gap in the provisions that we are passing. We have put the onus on the retail trade, which will put an additional pressure on many responsible shops, and we think it right to do so, but it is surely also right to put the onus on advertisers not to advertise weapons of the type that I have described.
The clause as it stands says:
Any person who sells to a person under the age of sixteen years an article to which this section applies"—
that would now be an article or a weapon—
shall be guilty of an offence liable … to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5".
The amendment seeks three things. First, it would place a similar penalty on a person who encouraged or incited the purchase of such a weapon. That is straightforward. People should not incite youngsters to obtain and carry weapons.
Secondly, the amendment would make it a punishable offence to buy a weapon on behalf of a youngster under 16. Surely that is a sensible extension of the requirement. Thirdly, it would make it a punishable offence to advertise
such an article for sale in a way which appears to incite or condone the possession of such an article for violent purposes".
That would not stop the advertising or sale to adults of items needed for legitimate activities such as work or fishing or whatever; it would concentrate the weight of the legislation on the nature of advertisements that include words that appear to make violence attractive or to incite those who are interested in violence.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam on bringing the Bill before the House, and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported it. We are tackling a serious problem, and we need to go behind that problem to the culture that appears to encourage people, especially young people, to become involved in carrying weapons, and potentially in actual violence. I hope that my amendment will attract support throughout the House and that the Minister will accept it.

Sir Michael Shersby: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and I have considerable sympathy for what he said. He touched on an important subject, of which many hon. Members will have had no experience, because they do not come into contact with the type of publication that he was talking about.

Mr. Michael: May I make it clear that I—and,I am sure, the hon. Gentleman himself and my hon. Friends—have come across such periodicals only in the course of research?

Sir Michael Shersby: I am sure that that is the case.
I shall tell the House about an experience that I had two or three years ago, when the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation drew my attention to an advertisement that, if I remember rightly, appeared in one or two of the east London local papers. It was for a commando knife made of carbon fibre, complete with blood channels, which was described as an ideal Christmas present. It was said that it could be used as a letter opener.
The advertiser did not give his address, simply a telephone number, but it was made clear that one could purchase the knife by using a Visa card. The chairman of the federation and I set out to track down the address of the advertiser, and used all the legitimate channels open to us, but we could not find it. The telephone number was ex-directory.
We therefore decided to purchase the article to see what was being offered. I still have mine locked up in a safe as an example of such terrible weapons. We referred the matter to the Home Secretary, who was extremely concerned about it. An individual was clearly advertising a weapon that had only one purpose—to kill. It could certainly not by any stretch of the imagination be described as a letter opener. If I tried to bring mine into the House today, I think that you would instantly have me incarcerated in the Clock Tower, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a serious and dangerous weapon.
Since then, I have seen a number of other examples of such items, often advertised in the fliers that are inserted in local newspapers. Newspaper proprietors may not be

aware of the detailed contents of the fliers; they are interested only in the business of circulating them in the newspaper. Therefore, they can reach a wide variety of people, many of whom will be young. Other advertisements appear in what I would describe as fringe periodicals of one kind or another, which are sometimes issued free with newspapers. They advertise a horrifying variety of articles that no law-abiding citizen would want to possess. As has been pointed out, such articles are particularly attractive to young people—particularly men between the ages of 16 and 18 who are becoming interested in knives, guns and things of that nature.
We must address that problem. It is very difficult to deal with because, as I said by way of intervention earlier, the advertisements and fliers do not always come to the attention of respectable and distinguished bodies such as the Advertising Standards Authority or the Committee of Advertising Practice, which deal with such matters in a practical and a sensible manner. The advertisements and fliers in question often appear on the fringes of society. But they advertise equipment—certainly knives and other dangerous articles—that has only one purpose: to kill human beings.
I realise that it is a difficult problem to resolve. However, I express my strong support for the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman. He makes a good point, which needs to be addressed—although I do not underestimate the difficulties of doing so.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to accept amendment No. 22. I understand exactly what its supporters seek to do. However, I fear that if we accepted the amendment, we would not achieve the results that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) seek. In accepting the amendment, we would be going down the slippery slope of restricting freedom of expression.
I take the point that the literature in question does not constitute a very pleasant form of expression—I find the advertisements as offensive as anyone else does. Nevertheless, we must not restrict people's rights to express their views and to advertise products. That goes to the heart of our freedom in this country. We restrict that freedom very reluctantly. We do so in the case of pornography and indecent material, and the hon. Gentleman is asking for a similar restriction of freedom in this area.

Mr. Michael: I find it difficult to believe what I am hearing. The hon. Gentleman is saying that allowing people to advertise weapons in a way that incites violence is protecting freedom of speech. Does he seriously mean what he is saying?

Mr. Atkinson: I am saying exactly that. In this country, people have a right to publish their views—provided that those views are not indecent or restricted by the laws of libel—however offensive they may be. All hon. Members can think of things that we find offensive and would like to restrict or ban. I might like to ban Labour party political broadcasts, but I cannot do that because the Labour party has a right to televise those broadcasts.
The hon. Gentleman must understand that he is going down a very dangerous road. If he had introduced such a measure in this place in the 19th century, virtually every


hon. Member on these Benches would have attacked him vehemently. We must be careful not to take away people's freedoms. We should do so only if we could prove that. by accepting the hon. Gentleman's amendment, we could solve the problem. Clearly. that is not the case.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, weapons such as Rambo shoulder holsters are advertised in fliers. It is a sinister and subtle mail order trade, which does not reach most young men aged between 16 and 18 who are the targets of the legislation. Such material is sent to those rather curious people who like to collect military equipment and memorabilia. I do not think that such people are the cause of violence on the streets or the targets of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
If we could prove conclusively that restricting those fliers would have a positive impact on violence on the streets, I might consider removing people's rights of expression. However, that is not the case. Those who use such weapons on the streets are not collectors; they acquire knives and carry them for violent and illegal purposes, and the legislation is correct to crack down on that practice.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to restrict freedom of expression. If we were to restrict the advertising of a Rambo shoulder holster knife, it would be an easy and logical next step to ban films and television programmes about Rambo-type characters. We must not go down the road of censorship and restriction of expression. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and the House not to accept the amendment.

Sir Michael Shersby: I ask my hon. Friend to clarify his remarks. I agree completely that the House should not do anything to restrict the lawful, reasonable and sensible expression of opinion by any individual. I think that everyone present accepts that. However, we are not talking about that: we are talking about those who advertise dangerous articles, the only purpose of which is to kill other human beings. We are not talking about confining people's legitimate expression of opinion: we are talking about those who offer horrible knives for sale, usually in a covert manner. As I explained earlier, they often do not provide their address and operate through ex-directory telephone numbers. They ensure that the material that they produce is directed at the people who are responsible for many of the problems with which we are dealing today.
I fully accept that it is not an easy matter to resolve. However, I do not think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said anything that would constitute a restriction on the legitimate rights of individuals to express their views. He is talking about the advertising of weapons to young people who may purchase them. As a result, we may then read in the newspapers, see on television or hear on the radio that someone has lost his or her life.

Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend reinforces my point: I do not believe that the leaflets that advertise those products covertly get into the hands of young people. They do not. The products are sold to collectors of military memorabilia and to the patrons of those sorts of establishments, who could not sell those weapons to people under a certain age, according to the terms of the Bill. Such people constitute a curious minority.
The advertisements do not appear in reputable magazines that are widely available around the country, because those magazines are covered by the Advertising Standards Authority code of practice. Such advertisements do not appear in newspapers, because newspapers also adhere to that code. The advertisements appear in small backstreet fliers that are circulated discreetly among collectors of those sorts of items. I do not believe that they get into the hands of the people whom the Bill is targeting. That is my argument.
If such advertisements were encouraging young people at large to commit acts of violence, I would take a different view. However, we must not restrict people's right of freedom of expression—no matter how undesirable that expression may be—unless we are absolutely certain that, by removing that freedom, we shall achieve our aim. I urge the House not to support the amendment because it will not do that.

Mr. Merchant: I have great sympathy with the objective of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in moving the amendment. It is entirely laudable that he wishes to restrict the sorts of advertisements to which he referred, which are clearly harmful and go against the principle of the Bill. However, I part company with him on the means of achieving that aim.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands—I do not suggest that he has any intention to mislead—the way in which the Advertising Standards Authority and the self-regulatory system in advertising work. I believe also that his quotation from the letter that he received—although I am sure that the quotation is accurate—is not a fair reflection of the way in which the ASA works in practice.

Mr. Michael: The day before we debated the issues in Committee, I had a long conversation with an official of the Advertising Standards Authority. As a result of that conversation. I am absolutely certain—without any shadow of doubt—that I have quoted Lord Rodgers' statement absolutely correctly. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands that it is a very specific statement, which has been checked carefully.

Mr. Merchant: If I may continue to describe how the ASA works, I shall answer the hon. Gentlemen's question. The ASA was originally established by the advertising industry, but is an independent body, and its authority is probably greater than that of any other self-regulatory body. The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that the ASA does not have the force of law, which is palpably true. He is also right to say that the ASA could not ban and prevent by law every advertisement. I do not challenge that point, but seek to illustrate that the effect of a firm line by the ASA is equivalent to that of the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
As a result of a complaint or on its own initiative, the ASA will examine an advertisement in detail. If it breaks the code of practice—and as I said in my intervention, any advertisement of a kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred would do so—the authority can take action. The hon. Gentleman attempted to suggest that the ASA just asks nicely for an advertisement to be withdrawn, but does nothing if that request is ignored. From my past experience in the industry, I know that if the ASA makes such a request, one can be pretty certain that the vast majority of the industry will instantly accede.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. Responsible organisations do not need the ASA's advice in such circumstances. If there is a slip-up and an unacceptable advertisement gets through the net, the media will respond to an ASA request. We are concerned not about responsible organisations, but about advertisers and periodicals that do not give a toss for the authority's views, which makes the amendment necessary. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand?

Mr. Merchant: I entirely understand, and if the hon. Gentleman is patient—and I do not intend to delay the House long—I shall answer his point specifically. We must deal first with the vast majority of advertising, and that comes under the scope of the ASA. One passes laws to cover an entire subject, not one small part.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Merchant: No, because I know the point that is exercising the hon. Gentleman and I shall answer it.
It is important to understand the whole subject. If a firm advertises wrongly, in a way that would upset the hon. Gentleman, me or the ASA, the authority can deal with and bring sanctions to bear against the people involved at every stage of the process—the advertiser, the agency that produced the copy, the media or the direct mail company that posted the leaflet or publication. The ASA can also deal with host advertisements, in the form of leaflets within a mailing or publication. One would be hard put to find an advertisement that could not be the subject of ASA sanctions.
The hon. Gentleman exaggerated the number of cases when an offending advertisement would be outside the ASA's control. I concede that such incidents could arise, but the hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerated the number.

Mr. Michael: I have not exaggerated the number, because I have not given a number. The number does not have to be large. The hon. Gentleman implied that we legislate only for majorities, but we do not—we legislate for minorities. Murderers account for a tiny minority in this country. We legislate against murder because we do not regard it as acceptable. We are doing the equivalent in this case.

Mr. Merchant: As a matter of fact, we do not legislate for the majority or the minority: we legislate for everyone across the board. That was the point that I was trying to make. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the law was necessary to deal with a number of cases. He is right to say that he did not specify how many there were, but his argument gave me the impression that he was talking about a large number. All I seek to do is to suggest that the number is extremely small and—this is the crucial point—the number of cases in which the ASA would not be able to solve the problem would be roughly equivalent to the number of cases in which the law could not solve the problem, if the amendment was accepted.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept and understand that the existence of a law does not prevent an offence from being committed. Even if the amendment were successful, people would still break the law, and place advertisements with no telephone number given, but with a discreet way of obtaining the goods concerned.
That happens now in other areas, including pornography, which is why there is a thriving, though illegal, pornography industry. The sole purpose of my remarks is to point out that the amendment would not have any effect and would not improve the situation. The self-regulatory system is extremely effective. For the most part, it achieves the objective, and when it does not, nor would the law.

Lady Olga Maitland: I have great sympathy for the arguments put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. We have discussed the issue in the Chamber, in Committee and outside. It would be a great pity if we dismissed the hon. Gentleman's concern out of hand, and I wish to demonstrate to him much thought I have given to the subject and how hard I have gone into his arguments. I hope that he will bear with me while I try to give him a real answer. I will not delay the House for too long.
It is appalling to see advertisements that appear to encourage vulnerable young teenagers or their older friends to buy vicious knives that serve no useful purpose, save to harm others. It is equally appalling to read advertisements that appear to incite or condone the possession of those knives for violent purposes. No one could dispute that.
I have read the report by the Advertising Standards Authority on weapons advertising, and I have a copy here. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has studied it; if not, I shall let him have a copy. The report contains some provocative reading. The ASA conducted a survey, and I found its attitude a trifle complacent. The authority said that it had received only four complaints in six years and that, therefore, there were not as many serious grounds for complaint and anxiety as we believe. However, in my view, the authority failed to recognise that the kind of magazines that publish those disturbing advertisements are read largely by people who enjoy or are somewhat excited by such material and they are not likely to complain. The complaints have to be brought in from outside.
Admittedly, the ASA was very concerned about a mail order advertisement for a wide variety of pocket, hunting and fishing knives. Although the advertisement contained no specific claims, its headline "KNIVES, KNIVES, KNIVES" was considered excessive. The report drew my attention to replica knives, which were given some very unhealthy descriptions. For example, a 13 in replica sword based on those used in the Napoleonic wars was described as being
carried by riflemen for vicious hand to hand combat.
A replica skean-dhu was described as a "wickedly effective fighting knife." The ASA conceded that such advertisements were questionable, but other descriptions are even more vivid. A "Terminator Terror Sword"—the name alone is sufficient cause for concern—was described thus:
an explosive power radiates from this monstrous double handed sword … fearsome death's head skull that grins menacingly … absolutely awesome 56" overall.
The ASA conceded that the words were sinister, menacing, monstrous, unnecessary and excessive.
It should be said that, usefully, the ASA has paid just as much attention to guns in its research. Guns do not come within the scope of the Bill, but in the light of the terrible Dunblane tragedy there is no doubt that there are


lessons to be learnt about the way in which some guns are promoted. Bearing in mind the time element which is pressing on us, I shall not go into that subject.
Suffice it to say that we are all suitably horrified. We feel that much more could and should be done. But what is the right approach? It is necessary to explore a number of difficulties.
12 noon 
In clause 6, the proposal is to make it an offence to sell certain articles, including knives and razor blades, to those under 16. The offence would be one of selling rather than buying. The onus would be on the seller rather than the buyer. I think that that is right, given that there is already an offence of carrying a knife in public. The additional offence of buying would create too great a concentration of offences. The problem is adequately catered for by having selling and carrying offences.
The proposal behind the amendment is to create an offence of encouraging and inciting the purchase of a knife or other banned article by someone under 16 years of age. We cannot have an offence of inciting someone to commit another offence that does not exist. Someone could be held to be inciting another to carry a knife or other offensive weapon in public without good reason, but that would not require legislative change. We must reject—

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lady Olga Maitland: I shall continue. It may be helpful if I complete what I am saying.
We must reject the proposal that is set out in the first part of the amendment on the basis that it is flawed. It would create an offence of incitement to do something that is not of itself an offence.
It is proposed also to create a different offence, which would be to advertise one of the articles whose sale to people under 16 we proposed to ban in a way that appears to incite or condone the possession of that article for violent purposes. It is already a common law offence for a person to incite or encourage another to commit a crime. To advertise an article for sale, representing its virtue to be that it may be used to undertake an act that is an offence, is an incitement to commit that very offence. That is true even when the advertisement is accompanied by a warning that the act is an offence.
I am trying to say that we are already covered by existing legislation. We do not need to go that bit further, as is proposed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It is clear that the amendment would add nothing to existing law. Although incitement can arise in relation to any offence, it is not general practice to include specific provisions for incitement for each offence. The result would be cumbersome and unnecessary.
Despite the findings set out in the ASA's report, I am concerned that it appears to be lacklustre when it comes to what it would like to do next. Surely the onus is on the ASA. It should monitor the media annually. Having said that it will take its responsibility on board, the ASA cannot duck it and say that the job is too large. It seems that there are many people who would help the ASA to undertake its task. There is plenty of evidence that the relevant material can be brought to light.
The ASA should not wait for a complaint to be brought before it before taking action. It should move rapidly as soon as it sees an advertisement that is downright dangerous and inflammatory. It must put much more direct pressure on advertisers, publicising what has been done and forcing them to withdraw such advertisements.
We should also encourage the police to take action when material that clearly incites others to commit crimes is brought to their attention. The police, after all, have the powers, and they should feel free to use them.
In view of those matters, I feel that it is not realistic to support the amendment—much as I sympathise with its spirit. Because of the ASA report, I believe that we should be keeping an eye on the situation and pressing that agency to be vigilant in exercising its responsibilities. At a later stage, if the system is not working, we will have to think again.

Mr. Kirkhope: I cannot say that I am without sympathy for the views that have been expressed. We had a very interesting debate on this matter in Committee, when I expressed some sympathy for the concerns expressed not only by my hon. Friends but by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that the amendment—although it is well meaning—is flawed in one part, and I believe that the other part is unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will in due course withdraw it.
I believe that the amendment is aimed at, among other things, dealing with the serious issue of how such articles are advertised and how that advertising is controlled. I should like to comment on the advertising of weapons in the context of the Advertising Standards Authority's recent report, to which hon. Members have referred.
The ASA has just reported on its survey of weapons advertising in the non-broadcast media. I understand that the report, which some us have already received, will be made more widely available in due course. The report is of very great interest, although the Bill, as we know, does not contain proposals directly affecting advertising.
The survey's aim was to ascertain the prevalence and presentation of weapons advertisements in the United Kingdom. Those conducting it monitored a range of newspapers, magazines and mail order catalogues during the first two weeks of February this year, and they made the following findings. They found a total of 259 advertisements, which included duplicates. The advertisements were for guns, knives, sports goods—ranging from martial arts weapons to archery equipment—replicas and catalogues. Of the total, 226—or 87 per cent.—of the advertisements were for guns, including air rifles, pistols and so-called "soft firers", which are guns that fire balls at very low velocity. The great majority of advertisements came from titles dedicated to such subjects as martial arts, fishing and field sports. About half were classified as advertisements for guns.
The ASA reports its views on the acceptability of advertisements under the British codes of advertising and sales promotion. I shall deal in a moment with what the ASA can and cannot do in situations in which it considers that advertisements are in breach of the codes.
The codes lay down the criteria for advertising standards and state that advertisements should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and society,


and that they should not contain anything that might condone or encourage violent or anti-social behaviour. Advertisements that were presented in a manner that might appeal to the immature or unstable mind, for example, would be unacceptable. Similarly, if a weapons advertisement were emotive or aggressive, it would come into conflict with the codes.
I turned with interest to the section of the ASA report that considered whether the advertisements picked up by the survey were considered to be acceptable or unacceptable. That is of interest for two reasons. The first reason is that we all, I think, want to know whether advertisers are behaving themselves. Secondly, however, I believe that it is helpful for us to have some insight into the way in which the ASA judges whether an advertisement is acceptable.
Of the 259 advertisements picked up by the survey, the great majority—94 per cent.—were considered to be acceptable under the codes. The remaining 6 per cent. were considered to be questionable. I should say that the low level of questionable advertisements should not lead us into complacency. As I mentioned earlier, 97 per cent. of the advertisements came from titles dedicated to subjects as diverse as martial arts, fishing and field sports. I believe that most advertisers will be responsible about the manner in which their advertisements are presented.
Although the ASA's report does not make it explicit, I believe that the majority of advertisements that were found to be offensive were at what one might call the "seedy end" of the range. Much of this relates to guns and knives rather than other offensive weapons—it is the latter with which we are mainly concerned now—but it would be helpful if I referred to the report as a whole because of the light that it sheds on the ASA's general approach.
In my opinion, certain mail order publications pander to the immature with advertisements of the type that I mentioned in Committee and that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned again a few moments ago. The ASA stated:
Advertisements should not glorify violence nor should they suggest that psychological excitement is to be gained from owning and handling weapons. Claims which refer to power and strength (even by using exaggerated exclamation marks) could appeal to the immature or unstable mind.
That certainly seems to be a promising starting point.
The report went on to say that six advertisements caused concern by referring to
The lightweight rifle packing the heavy punch!!
and
Pistol power! shooting fun starts with",
and that phrase is followed by the brand name. The ASA states that, although these expressions could be relatively harmless if used purely in the context of the Olympic sport of shooting, in other contexts the descriptions could be inappropriately emotive.
Five of the advertisements picked up in the survey were considered questionable by the ASA because they seemed unnecessarily provocative. A mail order advertisement placed by a retailer of air guns, swords, knives and replicas was considered irresponsible because of the use of the following language:
How cash crunching prices leave competitors heads rolling like lemons on lino. Battle burgers, had enough of pledgee wedges and stench warfare? … Sadistic ballistics".

I do not pretend to understand all that, but I understand enough to find it highly offensive. The ASA viewed that advertisement as aggressive and likely to appeal to the immature. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam cited similar examples which I do not need to repeat.
I take some heart from the ASA's criticism of advertisements that appear to take a frivolous approach to the advertising of potentially dangerous weapons. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is especially concerned about that. The ASA's report mentions a mail order advertisement for rifles. It is in the style of a comic strip in which the characters use expressions such as "Brill!", which we all know is an abbreviation of "brilliant", and "Get this!" The ASA considers that an immature way to promote guns.
Three of the mail order catalogues were considered to contain questionable advertising material. One advertisement for a gun referred to a "fistful of fun" along with the statement:
it's the kind of gun you just can't put down".
The ASA considered that a frivolous and irresponsible way to promote an air gun. As has been said, many immature people, or those with psychological difficulties, do not look at advertisements in the way that people with a more mature mind might. That certainly causes me great concern.
I shall deal now with the ASA's follow-up action to the survey. The purpose of the survey was, given current concerns about the sale of weapons, to ascertain the prevalence and presentation of weapons advertising in the United Kingdom. The ASA will distribute the report widely, which is good because it needs careful scrutiny. It will ask all the companies whose advertisements it considers unacceptable or questionable to amend them in future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred to the nature of the ASA's approach when it feels that sanctions might be necessary. Judging from its past performance, I believe that the ASA will be successful, but I remind the House that the ASA has no statutory powers. It was established in 1962 as an independent body to administer the British codes of advertising and sales promotion. The codes regulate the content of all non-broadcast media in the United Kingdom. The authority seeks to ensure that everyone who commissions, prepares, places and publishes advertisements observes the codes.
In this context, it is important to realise that many sanctions are available and that they are widely spread throughout the non-broadcast media. They include adverse publicity, the refusal of further advertising space when codes are broken, the removal of trade incentives, which is often very important, and legal proceedings if advertisements are in any way misleading.
The question that still arises is whether the arrangements are adequate. It is helpful in that context to distinguish between the article being advertised and the terms in which it is advertised. As we know, guns and knives can be bought and sold perfectly legally. As for knives—it is knives in which we are mainly interested—I believe that we have gone as far as we can in banning weapons that have a legitimate use, and that can be defined in law in a way that distinguishes them from knives that have other uses. Under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959,


for instance, flick knives and gravity knives are prohibited. Anyone who sells any of those articles, be it over the counter or through mail order, is committing an offence that carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment, a £5,000 fine or both.
12.15 pm 
The ASA is not in the business of banning advertisements for articles that may be sold legally; that would be a matter for Parliament. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth feels that we should take matters further. Let me make a few comments about whether it is desirable or possible for Parliament to ban advertisements for knives.
It might well be desirable to ban advertisements for certain knives. I have in mind the so-called Rambo survival knives, and articles of that sort. Regrettably, the practical difficulties that arise when we consider banning the sale of those items also arise when we consider advertising. We cannot define the items in law in a way that distinguishes them from knives that have legitimate uses. A manufacturer may give a knife a fancy or even an offensive name, but the fact remains that, unless the article in question has a mechanism or feature that enables it to be distinguished in law from knives that are used legitimately, it is not possible to ban one without banning the other. Even if it were possible to tease out advertising from simple sale, it could be strongly argued that, if it is legal to sell something, it should also be legal to advertise it. As I said earlier, I believe that we have gone as far as we can in banning the sale of undesirable articles.
It is one thing for an advertisement to describe, say, an angling knife in a straightforward and unemotive way; it is quite another for the advertiser to say or imply that it can be used to inflict injury. In reaching a decision about whether an advertisement is unacceptable, some pretty fine judgments may have to be made in a number of different contexts. It is not easy to legislate for that.
The ASA regards the use of the title "KNIVES, KNIVES, KNIVES"—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam—as excessive, and is confident that it will get it modified in future advertisements. I doubt whether we could achieve that through statutory control. As I have said, there are problems. Some of us may feel that censorship might not be such a bad thing, but if we censor so-called Rambo survival knives, should we not also censor Rambo-style films? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), I believe that there could be a slippery slope. I also feel that we would have great difficulty in dealing with much of the advertising that we would want withdrawn or changed—some of which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, emanates from shady operations with limited circulation, and which is very difficult to control, particularly if the distributors do not care for the law.
I am concerned, however, that the ASA normally only responds to complaints, rather than looking for objectionable material. Much of that material will appear in magazines and catalogues whose readers may actually enjoy it rather than wishing to complain. In the context of the debate, those people worry me.
I have taken careful note of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), who represented the views and concerns of many people.

I make it clear that, as a result of the ASA report and our debate, I intend to approach the ASA to have further discussions about its approach, its sanctions and the discipline that it brings to the advertising industry. I hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, that it will continue its regular surveys to keep an eye on what it going on. In the meantime, more may have to be done and, as I say, I intend to approach the ASA for further discussions.

Mr. John Greenway: In those discussions will my hon. Friend seek to address the potentially growing problem of the advertising of such material through the Internet?

Mr. Kirkhope: That is an important point. Within the Home Office I am involved with a team that is looking at the effect of the Internet, particularly some of the unpleasant material that is passing through it. I shall do my best to include that in my discussions with the ASA. I apologise to the House for having spoken for so long. I ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Michael: The Under-Secretary quoted example after example of advertisements that make my case absolutely and unquestionably. The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Uxbridge also gave examples which show why the amendment should be accepted. The Under-Secretary and the Advertising Standards Authority agree that these advertisements are intended to appeal to immature people, especially to young people, and that has been accepted.
The Under-Secretary agrees that the ASA does not do enough. He was right to suggest that it is too much of a limitation that it considers a case only when it receives a complaint. I hope that he is successful in his discussions with the ASA on that. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) shakes his head with a violence that seems likely to do him some damage. However, his enthusiastic support for the Advertising Standards Authority is misplaced on the basis of what it has said to me and to others on precisely this point.

Mr. Kirkhope: Perhaps I could set the record straight. I used the word "normally" and I did not say that it was exclusively the case. In my discussions with the ASA, I shall speak about the emphasis on proactive or reactive attitudes.

Mr. Michael: I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to do that. It will be interesting to discover the outcome of that discussion, but having it does not abrogate the Minister's responsibility. The Minister has expressed concern, but what do the Government intend to do? Nothing! He has acknowledged that the ASA has no statutory powers and cannot do anything about those who ignore its rules, its codes and its advice. Is there some sort of ban on Ministers agreeing to regulate anything, even matters that are universally accepted as being in the public interest? Only yesterday, the private security industry was raised. Regulation is wanted by the police, by the industry itself and by the public, but Home Office Ministers appear to be stymied by the Department of Trade and Industry from agreeing to regulate even in the public interest.
I would not have moved the amendment if the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam or the Government had drafted amendments to try to tackle the problem. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has acknowledged that there is a need to take some action and has attempted to deal seriously with the issues that I have raised, although I think that she has been led astray by the Home Office from her virtuous efforts to tackle the knife culture. She suggested that everything is covered by existing legislation. She is wrong. If we want the police to act on such weapons, we need to give them the tools that they need to do the job, and the amendment would help in that regard.
The hon. Lady said that the onus is on the Advertising Standards Authority. No, it is not. I agree with her criticisms and also hope that it will take the matter more seriously, but it is the responsibility of Government and of Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that legislation is in place for people who do not observe the ASA's voluntary requirements.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ASA has already responded to our concerns and that, as a result of our earlier debates, it has published this report?

Mr. Michael: Yes. It has been a bit slow to do so, but the ASA has, I acknowledge, responded to some extent. I am not, however, trying to place the onus on the ASA. My basic point is that responsible advertisers seeking to sell articles to people involved in fishing or other sports will observe the ASA's rules, but people who seek to sell weapons that are intended for violent purposes to impressionable people, including impressionable young people—who can then become a danger to society—will not take a blind bit of notice of what the ASA says.
I was taken aback by the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham. I am not sure whether he has retained an interest in the advertising industry, but I believe that he was speaking against the interests of that industry and of the ASA.

Mr. Merchant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: Wait one moment. The vast majority of people who publish and who advertise have no interest in promoting such weapons in the sort of advertisements that have been quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The amendment aims at a specific target. It is in the best interests of the advertising industry as a whole that this disreputable bit of the market should be hit by my amendment.

Mr. Merchant: I will not be drawn back into the debate, because I have made my position clear; but, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, I want to make it clear to him that I have no interest in the advertising industry or in any other industry. I have no such connections and never have done during my period in the House.

Mr. Michael: If there is any doubt, I was referring to interest in the sense of keeping up to date and of being aware of issues that affect the industry. My point is that the line that the hon. Gentleman was taking is not in that industry's interests.
The hon. Member for Beckenham made the point, as I have done, that the vast majority of the industry observes voluntary regulation, but we often legislate in the House for a small number of people who go against the interests of the community at large. I gave the example of murderers. There are not very many murders, but it is such a horrendous offence that we legislate specifically to try to prevent the actions of that minority and to punish them if they offend. That is what laws are for.
Similarly, I know that we are trying to regulate for a small minority of advertisers and a small proportion of the advertising market, but it is a proportion. It continues to have these advertisements, which succeed in reaching some people. If advertisers were not selling any of these things, they would not continue to advertise. Responsible organisations do not need the advice of the Advertising Standards Authority on this matter. If they are slipping, they will listen to the advice in the report, which has been referred to by several hon. Members. The amendment is about advertising by organisations and individuals who do not give a toss about the views of the ASA or of hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made an extraordinary speech. He appears to be so obsessed with freedom of expression that he does not care whether that advertising results in violence or even death. I have to put it that strongly to him because such things are encouraged by the advertisements that have been quoted, among others, by the Minister and myself. I expect people involved in country sports generally to support my amendment when they consider its specific wording and the type of advertisements to which we have referred. The amendment would catch those who advertise
such an article for sale in a way which appears to incite or condone the possession of such an article for violent purposes.
The amendment is very specific and it is narrowly drawn.
It is difficult to believe that the hon. Member for Hexham is so naive as to think, first, that those advertisements get into the hands only of those who are not impressionable in any way and do not get into the hands of young people and, secondly, that it is all right for people to advertise in that way.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I may be naive, and perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I believe in defending the right of an individual to self-expression. It is something that we should restrict only with very great reluctance. It should be restricted only if the hon. Gentleman could show, through his arguments during this debate, that some positive benefit to the public would result from passing his amendment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has shown without doubt that the amendment would not achieve that. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not try to restrict the rights of people to self-expression. I agree that they are unpleasant people, but simply because someone is unpleasant does not mean that he should not be able to express his views.

Mr. Michael: I do not regard the hon. Gentleman as old-fashioned, although I certainly regard him as naive and his views as dangerous. The expression of views can cause enormous problems in society and the House has legislated against that in certain cases. On a number of occasions we have expressed concern about the freedom


to incite violence, including racial violence. Are those freedoms that the hon. Gentleman would wish to defend? I rather think not. If he reads his words in Hansard and considers their implications, he may come to regret deeply what he has said today.
Fringe periodicals of the sort that the amendment would target reach impressionable young people, as do flyers in local newspapers. The freedom to incite violence is a freedom we can do without. The self-regulatory system is not sufficient. We need to control the advertising of offensive weapons to ensure that neither guns nor knives get into the wrong hands, thereby putting the public in danger. It is in the interests of the advertising industry—even of the ASA—that we should legislate in the way suggested in my amendment. It is certainly in the interests of the public and also of the police, who have to deal with violence on our streets.
There has been a series of cross-party debates on the Bill. I acknowledge the fact that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has tried to deal with the issues that I have raised. We are agreed on the need to do something about advertising. Unfortunately, the Minister has not yet accepted that. I hope that, in the atmosphere of a cross-party approach to the horrific events at Dunblane and cross-party agreement on necessary legislation, we will continue to debate the whole issue of mail order of weapons—including guns and knives and the way in which they can be advertised through channels that will encourage the interest of impressionable young people. I hope that, this year, legislation will be introduced to tackle a problem that I have been glad to be able to air during this short debate.
It is not my purpose to delay the Bill. As I said earlier, we give two cheers for it; I would have liked to be able to give a third cheer for having my amendment accepted. However, two cheers are better than none. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 39, leave out 'and 3' and insert
', 3 and 4(1), (1A) and (3)'.—[Lady Olga Maitland.]

Title

Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in line 1, leave out from 'about' to end of line 12 and insert
'persons having knives, other articles which have a blade or are sharply pointed or offensive weapons; and about selling knives or such articles to persons under the age of sixteen years'.
I tabled the amendment as a result of concern expressed about the long title of my Bill. It is a very long title and we feel that the Bill should now be given a better title and a relatively short one. I am assured by the draftsmen that the shorter version that I proposes is no different in substance from the one that it replaces

and does not affect the Bill's scope. It is therefore an uncontentious, technical amendment, about which there is not a great deal more to be said.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is an important Bill. It is a sad reflection on the times that it needs to be introduced at all. The knife culture is set to engulf us all unless we take a firm hand and curb it now. There must be tough condemnation from society for young thugs who indulge in mindless violence, and the backing of Parliament to ensure that we have legislation that will work. We want to ensure that those who carry knives do so at their peril. They are not heroes; they are common little criminals. They will be caught, they will face stiff penalties, and wherever they turn they will face a wall of obstacles preventing them from obtaining their vicious weapons. The Bill will achieve all that.
It might be helpful if I set out the context in which the Bill came about. I have personally campaigned for years against the knife culture. I know one family in particular—Bill and Valerie Dennison—who were shattered when their 17-year-old son, John, was mindlessly stabbed to death. We owe a debt to headmaster Philip Lawrence, slaughtered by a teenager: his courage and sacrifice spurred me on, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister helped me to put the Bill together.
Tragically, Mr. Lawrence's death is one in a long series of statistics. Knife-related offences are increasing year on year, and the victims are of all ages—children, teenagers, middle-aged people, pensioners and, above all, the police. In 1994, 1,000 police officers were seriously assaulted and injured in England and Wales. Prosecutions rise every year, and in 1993–94—the last year for which figures are available—there was a sharp jump of almost 1,000, to 3,367, in London alone. That is a good example of just how serious the problem is. Despite the appalling tragedy in Dunblane, more people die from being stabbed by a knife than from being shot by a gun. Of the 677 people murdered in this country that same year, 236 were stabbed. In London, 41 per cent. of all murders involved knives or other sharp instruments. In short, the knife is more lethal than the gun, and we have no choice but to tackle the knife culture with great urgency.
Such offences are taking place all over the country. The decent suburban areas and the peaceful rural countryside are not immune to the violence. In my constituency. a pleasant, green and seemingly tranquil part of the world, 54 people were arrested for possessing offensive weapons in just six months of last year. We have had our share of stabbing incidents. Youngsters as young as 10, 11 and 12 years old have been caught with knives.
A regular survey of the press will come up with its own catalogue of tragedy. Barely a week passes without one hearing of a terrible death. I look back, for instance, to February, when a 14-year-old boy was stabbed in the chest while playing with school friends. Last year, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Barbara Mills, reeled in horror when her husband, John, was stabbed just yards


from their front door. Just two months ago, a gang fight in west London resulted in death, and in March an amnesty produced 37,000 knives. I imagine—sadly—that that is only a tiny percentage of those still at large. And so the awful tragedy goes on. The nation may be horrified, but with determination, we should be able to prevent our country from sliding into the violent chaos that dominates major US cities such as New York, Washington and Chicago.
The Bill tackles the problem from the bottom. A week ago, the Evening Standard published a despairing article which accused Scotland Yard of being
soft over war on knife culture".
The article suggested that the police were weak in view of the fact that although 60,000 people had been cautioned or prosecuted for having offensive weapons between 1990 and 1994, a mere 1.7 per cent. had been gaoled. The paper was right in one respect, because the law needed to be tightened up, but it was wrong to suggest that nothing was being done.
In many cases, the police were powerless to do more. The Bill will greatly help the police to make an arrest on the spot when they find a person carrying a knife without good reason. Until now, the policeman was powerless. He was empowered only to issue a caution, a warning or a summons, which could sometimes take weeks to go through the system.
In future, the thugs will have a shock when they are caught. Their swaggering arrogance will disappear when they are frog-marched down to the police station. Furthermore, on conviction, they will no longer get away with a ticking off. They will face stiff fines and, according to the circumstances, they may face gaol sentences of up to four years. There will be no hiding place for these mobsters.
Tragically, school premises have been the scene of far too many knife incidents. Until now, schools were a sanctuary, like a church, which the police could not enter to search and arrest. We have therefore taken a significant step in Committee by including in the Bill a provision permitting the police to go into schools to search and arrest. They were not able to do that before because the sanctuary aspect of schools prohibited them when they wanted to go inside. It meant that children felt that they could get away with it.
It is significant that the important step of allowing the police into schools has been welcomed by 14 different teachers' unions and associations. Regrettably, the chief education officer in my Liberal Democrat-controlled authority admitted to my researcher that he could not see any advantage in allowing the police to go into schools and that he was against the suggestion. He speaks for himself and for the Liberal Democrat attitude towards being tough on crime. The Liberal Democrats are certainly out of step.
We shall not rest there. Not only do we want the police to have permission to go into schools, but we want to forbid the sale of knives to under 16-year-olds. We have therefore taken a major step by including in the Bill a provision whereby retailers will not be able to sell knives to teenagers under 16. The truth is that these teenagers feel that buying a knife is smart. It is not; it is cheap and cowardly. The retailer is now protected by the fact that he cannot sell knives to under-16s. If he does and is caught, he will face a fine of up to £5,000.
I trust that the Bill will be the breakthrough that we crave. Society has had enough of this thuggery. There may be many causes. I believe that the breakdown of the family structure has a great deal to do with the problem. Parents who love and control their children, bringing them up in a stable and disciplined environment, are far less likely to find that they have offspring who turn into street thugs. However, this is not the time to apportion blame; it is time to recognise the difficulties that we face and to take firm action.
I am grateful for the support that I have had from my hon. Friend the Minister, from my colleagues and from the Opposition in bringing this important Bill through all its stages. I commend the Bill to the House. I trust that it will have a safe passage when it is piloted through the other place by my father, the Earl of Lauderdale.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her Bill and on the campaign that preceded it. In each case she has done the community that she represents in Sutton and Cheam, and our nation, a great service. I hope that she will not think it a discourtesy on my part if I leave to see constituents shortly after speaking.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Philip Lawrence was my constituent and friend, so I have been extremely close to one of the main triggers of the Bill. I would like to say a word or two about that situation, without prejudice to the forthcoming trial of those charged with his murder.
The position would have been different, and Philip might have been with us today, if the Bill had been in place on 8 December 1995. Philip Lawrence saw a group of thugs outside his school, St. George's, behaving in a menacing way. If such a thing happens now, a headmaster will be able to call the police, who would have power to search those involved, on the suspicion that one of them was carrying a knife, and they would be able to disarm that individual. If that had been the case in December, a brave headmaster would not have had to face a group of thugs who were interfering with one of his pupils—a vulnerable 13-year-old—and then, when his intervention failed to deal with the problem, had to chase them up the road for 200 or 300 yd. Think of the courage of that. At that distance from his school, Philip Lawrence still could not resolve the situation, and he was stabbed in the heart. Somehow he got back to his school, collapsed outside it, was carried in by his colleagues and the children, and died 20 minutes later.
That has been such a tragedy for Philip's family—his dear wife Frances, his brave mother, who is nearly 90, and his four children. It has also been a tragedy for my community and for the nation. I believe that that sort of thing will be prevented in future by the Bill. For that reason alone, the Bill is right and proper.
What more can we say about the Bill's effect on schools? It is profound. For the first time, the police will have the power to enter schools and search for a weapon. My 23 years in teaching included my time as deputy headmaster at a school for 1,100 boys at King's Cross—fine boys, but it was not the easiest of areas. I was subsequently deputy headmaster of a school for 2,200 children from 11 to 19 the Bellingham estate in


Lewisham, and I ran that school for periods of time. So I know that in running a school one often has to face physical challenges. As you know from your own professional days, Madam Deputy Speaker, in schools there are children who will go to Oxford or Cambridge, and there are those who may become criminals if we do not succeed in doing what every school seeks to do and handling them in the best possible way. From time to time I have had to disarm boys with knives and other aggressive weapons—boulders, great pieces of wood, and so on—just as other teachers, head teachers and deputy heads have had to do over the years.
Once the Bill is enacted teachers will not have to do that any more. If there is a suspicion that a pupil has a lethal weapon such as a knife, and if the head and deputy head feel that they cannot handle that difficult situation, they will be able to call in the police to deal with it. That is a sad development, because in one's professional days one liked to feel that one was king of one's classroom and of one's school—as, indeed, one was, and as head teachers, deputies and teachers still are, but they now need the assistance of the facility that the Bill provides to help them handle the serious and growing difficulties which, as we know, have led to the murder of a great headmaster.
I have nothing but praise for what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has sought to do, for the way in which she has gone about it and for her achievements in getting the Bill to Third Reading today. I congratulate her.

Mr. David Nicholson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her work in promoting the Bill and on responding to the horrific statistics and cases that she cited in her speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) described in detail the tragic murder of his constituent, and we shall all remember that case for a long time.
I wish to take the House back some 20 years when, perhaps rather rashly, I intervened in an incident in the west end of London. A person was lying on the ground being kicked by a group of four or five thugs and, in coming to his assistance, I was thrown to the ground and sustained a kick under the ribs. The police arrived rapidly, so I and the victim of the assault did not suffer worse damage. I fear that such incidents have become more common in recent years, and I wonder what would have happened to us if the assailants had been armed with knives.
Shortly before that episode, I had moved into a new flat and one evening I disturbed a burglar—a new residence is often burgled at the time of handover. The burglar did not steal anything from my flat, but when I discussed the incident with the owner of the flat downstairs he told me that the burglar had stolen some money from him. I said, "I'm very sorry—I wish that I had tried to apprehend him, but it all happened so suddenly." My neighbour replied, "It's a good thing you didn't do that because he also stole the bread knife." That brings home to us the danger faced by the police—to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred—and others going about their business who try to prevent street crime if they tangle with someone who is carrying a knife.
I hope that the Bill will proceed successfully through Parliament. My hon. Friend referred to the powers that the legislation will afford the police to arrest a person for carrying a knife without good reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the powers to search schools on the suspicion that students are carrying knives. We were appalled by the comments of the director of education in the borough of Sutton. I hope that there will be no resistance to the new extremely important powers that the Bill confers on the police to enter schools. They are a way of commemorating Philip Lawrence.
It may be quite easy for students in school who are carrying knives to arouse suspicion. Other students get to know about it, and therefore the staff will become aware that knives are present at the school and that they should call in the police. However, I am concerned about those armed with knives who seek to commit burglaries or street crimes or who simply meet up at the pub and are involved in an affray.
We have heard about the traditions of the Scots and the Sikhs, but people in this country do not carry knives like the characters in Romeo and Juliet—stuck through their belts so that everyone can see them. Most people conceal such weapons. I tried to address earlier—it appears that I was not successful—the problem of how one arouses suspicion and how the police will deal with this matter. Perhaps the police should have more flexible powers to stop and search people so that those who carry knives will run the risk of detection and prosecution.
I welcome the Bill and the powers that it confers, but is it enough? Perhaps in a year or two shall look back and say, "That was the major turning point for the knife culture"—not only because of the penalties, which are the Bill's biggest innovation, but because of the ability of the police to apprehend those who conceal knives on their person. Leaving that concern with my hon. Friends the Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Minister, I welcome the Bill and wish it success.

Sir Michael Shersby: I join colleagues in all parts of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on her achievement in bringing her Bill to its Third Reading and taking a signal step in the progress that Parliament is making towards dealing with the difficult problem of the knife culture. The Bill is important to my constituents as to those of every other Member of Parliament, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by many head teachers and others responsible for the safety of children in school.
My one regret is that the Bill does not deal with a major obstacle in detecting whether a person is in possession of an offensive weapon—the inability of a police constable to stop and search a person unless the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find a stolen or prohibited weapon. The introduction of the concept of reasonable grounds is the responsibility of the House, following the Brixton riots in the early 1980s and with the subsequent passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1994. That concept was backed by a code of practice for the exercise by police officers of statutory powers of stop and search, which set out the circumstances in which an officer can stop and search a person with reasonable grounds for suspicion.
The manuals used to educate and train probationer constables advise that the level of suspicion required to establish reasonable grounds in exercising the power to


stop and search is no less than the level required before an officer arrests a person without warrant for an offence that carries such a power of arrest. The existing legislation and its associated guidance are too restrictive in providing police officers with the flexibility to use their powers of stop and search as a preventive measure, which I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam is of utmost importance.
It is important that the House should recognise that police officers cannot use their substantial experience, knowledge, intuition and training in dealing with potential problems in a proactive way. We all admire the intuition, training, hunches and skill that police officers bring to their work in protecting the citizen, but they are restricted by the provision that I mentioned.
The current restrictive legislation and guidance can be effectively highlighted by an example that is relevant to the Bill, relating to the carrying of knives in or within the vicinity of a school. A police officer might come across a group of youths outside a school, knowing that they do not attend it. He suspects that there could be trouble if the youths remain in the vicinity of the school grounds. He could also be aware that trouble has occurred outside the school before and that knives have been brandished. Nevertheless, unless the police officer has a description that fits the youths concerned, it is unlikely that he would be considered to have reasonable grounds to justify a search. Unfortunately, as the present legislation and guidance is framed, the officer can take little or no positive or preventive action to stop and search the youths.
Since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police officers have been forced to be extremely cautious in their use of stop-and-search powers, which has had a detrimental and negative effect on preventive policing. That does not have to be the case. The legislation and guidance should be framed in such a way that officers are given greater flexibility to execute stop-and-search powers to prevent crime while still being responsible for their actions.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend is enunciating the concerns that I was trying to address, and we have had conversations on the subject. Does he agree that the law is different in Scotland and that because the law is more flexible there it has had a significant effect in reducing the knife culture?

Sir Michael Shersby: I agree entirely. The Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 is an excellent example of my hon. Friend's point. That legislation relies on an officer having reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has a prohibited article, and in Scotland the meaning of that phrase is not constrained by the guidance contained in the codes of practice introduced by order in England and Wales alone under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. On its implementation, the Scottish legislation had an immediate and positive effect on crime levels, especially in the Strathclyde area, which was undoubtedly due to police officers' ability to use the power given to them. That power is necessary in England and Wales. In terms of destroying the rapidly expanding knife culture in England and Wales, it is a pity that the Bill will not amend the current legislation and allow officers the power to stop and search, in a preventive manner, in order to protect defenceless and innocent citizens and to allow all members of the public services to perform their duties safely.
One change since the 1984 Act was very welcome and received wide support in the House. That change was contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 60 of which gives limited powers to a police officer
of or above the rank of superintendent
to authorise stop-and-search powers in a specific geographical area for a specific period of time. The powers can be used to search for "dangerous instruments", which are defined as
instruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed".
Welcome though the Bill is, I hope that there is still time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Government to consider, before the Bill reaches the statute book, whether the time is right to take a further step to restore to our police service the powers of stop-and-search that police officers enjoy in Scotland and which they operate without any difficulty whatever. The Government should have the courage to address the problem, difficult though I realise it is. It is important for the ethnic minority community to understand the importance of restoring to the police the powers that they had before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and now have in Scotland, because that would be in everyone's interest.
I have one simple message: we have to trust our police. They are highly responsible individuals whose expertise and training are the envy of the world. They should not be restricted by the outdated provisions of the 1984 Act and the codes that have been drawn up under that Act and which every constable has to learn by heart as they go through training school.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will be kind enough to consider the points that I have made today and use her good offices to see whether, even at this late stage, we might make that change. If she were to be successful, she would have made a magnificent and substantial contribution to improving the policing of this country and to achieving the objectives of this admirable Bill.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I consider it to be something of an honour to be a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in bringing forward such an important Bill. Throughout all stages of its consideration, we have heard many cases that exemplify why the Bill is necessary. Nevertheless, it came as something of a shock last week when I read the judgment in an especially horrifying case involving some of my constituents. The case was heard at Maidstone Crown court on Thursday last week.
The case concerned four of my constituents, who went out for an evening's entertainment. They were involved in an incident in which they were all stabbed. One of them died. A 23-year-old lad called Mark Simpson, with his young brother Lee and two friends, went out for the evening. The boys were described by a detective sergeant as decent, hard-working young men.
My constituents saw a young girl being harassed by a youth outside a pub in Gillingham. In a public-spirited nature, they intervened to try to save her from harassment. As a result of the affray, all of them were stabbed and, as I said, one of them died. I shall give the House an idea of


the nature of the wounds that were inflicted. As for the wounds of my constituent who died, two of the blows were delivered with considerable force, enough to pierce his breastbone and strike his heart, and he had knife wounds to his stomach, ribs and lower spine. What of the three other young lads? It was reported that Lee Simpson had been knifed in his left shoulder blade. Mr. Higgins suffered three stab wounds, one of which damaged his liver. Mr. Shea suffered wounds to his shoulder, back, arm and chest.
Who delivered such grievous wounds? The accused was a certain Daniel Latham, aged 21. He was a chef in a local restaurant. Apparently, he thought it necessary to carry a knife about his person to act as a deterrent because, he said, he had been beaten up in the neighbouring town of Sittingbourne. He thought that he should carry a knife as a deterrent, to show to his mates and to anybody else that he had a knife and that he would use it. And use it he did. It left one of my constituents dead and three others badly wounded.
That incident shows so graphically what remains wrong with the criminal justice system. It shows graphically also why the House needs to pass the Bill. The young thug to whom I referred would not have been carrying a knife if the provisions set out in the Bill had been in force.
What was the sentence that befell the young thug, having been proved to have killed one of my constituents and grievously wounded three others? He received a five-year sentence. My constituents and the grieving family of the boy who died are horrified at what they deem to be a travesty of British justice. Not only did the villain receive a mere five years for having killed a man and grievously wounded three others, but he will serve a prison sentence of only 20 months, by which time he will be eligible for parole. He will serve 20 months for a life.
I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his announcements on honest sentencing because of such cases. Five years' imprisonment in this case patently is not sufficient. When that sentence means only 20 months, I say: how we need honest sentencing.
I was completely flabbergasted at the leniency of that sentence. Mr. Justice Wright, in Maidstone Crown court, told the accused that he, the judge, had a duty to "reflect the public revulsion" over the use of knives. He went on to say:
If you and those like you had the sense to realise the stupidity of such behaviour you would not find yourself in the position you now do … It is the kind of offence I cannot treat leniently. As a result of your folly and stupidity in carrying that weapon, a man lies dead.
Nevertheless, the sentence was a mere five years.
Could it be that, as I suspect, some kind of plea bargaining had something to do with the sentence? The villain admitted manslaughter. I should have thought that carrying a knife and killing a person was murder, but I am not a lawyer. What irritates me and so many of my constituents is that there currently appears to be some type of grand judicial game-playing in the courts and legal system, which takes no account of the interests of justice or of public protection.
I intend to write to the Attorney-General about that case and to ask him to exercise the opportunity given to him by legislation to refer the case on the ground of undue leniency.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on a helpful and positive measure, which we have supported from the start. Some of the debates on the Bill have been constructive and interesting, and have had a positive effect, as did the amendment that was tabled and agreed in Committee.
I must make one serious point about the violence that is being experienced in British society. We have heard speeches today about how violence is increasing and about how tough we need to be to tackle it, and I agree with the general thrust of those remarks. In recent months, however, we have heard from the Home Secretary, time and again, that the level of crime is going down, and that there was a drop of 2 per cent. in crime last year. He has exhibited a degree of complacency that is probably shocking to the Conservative Members who have taken part in today's debate.
We have had a serious and important debate on an important Bill, and I share the worry that has been expressed on both sides of the House about the dangers of a growing knife culture. I also share the sense of urgency with which we should seek to nip that culture in the bud.
It is particularly important to realise that each attack involves a person's injury or death. Events such as Dunblane and the death of the head teacher Mr. Lawrence bring home to us our responsibilities as Members of Parliament in getting legislation right.
The statistics make some extremely important points: last year, the level of violent crime in England and Wales went up by 2 per cent., and the figure for robberies—some of which involve the type of weapons that we are talking about today—increased by 14 per cent. That is not happening only in some parts of the inner city.
The increase in total violent crime in Kent last year was 4 per cent. and robberies in Kent increased by 23 per cent. The figures for London are also very worrying. They show an increase of 2 per cent., which is quite considerable when one considers the size of the metropolis. Robberies in London increased by 17 per cent. Such increases in recorded crimes of violence are extremely worrying. It is important to understand them and not try to brush them under the carpet.
We have debated some of the ways in which the Bill could be extended. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has succeeded not only in promoting an important Bill, but in having it improved without delaying its passage through the House. That is quite an achievement and I pay tribute to her for that.
I am a little disappointed that we have not managed to go a little further. We need to target those who encourage or incite people under 16 to purchase weapons. The encouragement and incitement of youngsters to become involved in violent activities does occur. Football hooliganism, gang fights and racial violence do not just happen—they come about because impressionable people, and especially impressionable young people, are encouraged to get involved in violence and are drawn into the culture of violence. We need to tackle those issues as well as implementing the Bill's provisions.
We also need to target those who advertise weapons for sale in a way that incites or condones the possession of a weapon for violent purposes. I shall not rerun our


previous debate, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said today and read not only my comments, but those of my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Uxbridge and others, which have drawn attention to the horrific nature of some advertisements.
There is still time for the Minister to persuade the Home Secretary that, when the Bill goes, as I hope it will, speedily and efficiently through its stages in another place, it should have added to it a provision to extend its scope, which would tackle the problem of the advertising of weapons.
We certainly give two cheers today—one for the Bill and one for extending it to make it illegal to sell weapons to young people under 16, as my hon. Friend suggested. I plead with the Minister to think again and extend the Bill's scope to tackle the small and preventable problem of mail order catalogues and advertising which can put dangerous and potentially lethal weapons into the hands of those who should not have them in their possession. That would be an important addition, which would protect the public, and I am sure that it would win the third cheer from both sides of the House.

Mr. Kirkhope: I must express the Government's gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for agreeing to take forward this very important Bill. I know that that gratitude is shared by the whole House. My hon. Friend has also been very much involved in considering the proposals that were added to the Bill in Committee.
It is fair to say that there is a high degree of acceptance by hon. Members on both sides of the House not only of the notion that the evil of knife carrying and other knife-related crime should be stamped on, but of the type of measures that we should be looking at to achieve that. The Government have long recognised the need to empower the police to deal with such problems.
The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 made it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in public without good reason or lawful authority. A knife is not an offensive weapon in itself, as it can have all manner of legitimate uses. It can, however, be regarded as an offensive weapon when the prosecution can prove that the carrier intended to cause injury with it. The police were experiencing difficulties in proving intent in many cases, even though common sense dictated that knife carriers were not carrying knives for use as, say, legitimate kitchen implements.
Because of that difficulty, we introduced in section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 an offence of carrying a knife without good reason or lawful authority. In addition, we introduced in section 141 of that Act the power to prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of specified weapons. An order made under that section specifies 14 articles, including swordsticks and knuckledusters. That is in addition to flick knives and gravity knives, which are already prohibited under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
The provisions in the Bill build largely on the foundations already provided in other legislation. The proposed ban on the sale of knives to people under 16 is a new and radical measure, and one that is entirely justified. Common sense cries out that people in that age group should not be able, for the most part, to buy knives.
Let me explain about exclusions. In drawing up clause 6—which the Government introduced as an amendment in Committee—we gave careful consideration to the definition of precisely what we wished to cover in the ban on the sale of knives to people under 16. We need a workable provision and, if we introduced a long list of exceptions, I fear that that would not be achievable. We none the less recognise that certain articles covered by the definition proposed in new section 141A(2) should be excluded, and can be without undue threat to the clarity of the measure.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary proposes to exclude two articles in that way. The first is the folding pocket knife with a blade no longer than 3 in. The reasons are simple. First, buying a penknife has been a natural experience for many a child, on holiday, in souvenir shops, before going camping with the boy scouts or girl guides or for fishing. There is an argument that, if a child wants such a penknife, it should be bought for him by a parent. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of maintaining the freedom of children to buy penknives, but I think it important to make that concession. Another reason is that penknives are not a significant part of the knife culture that many police officers are now witnessing.
I said that two articles were covered by the ban. Let me explain what is meant by a knife blade. It is simple, although unpleasant, to explain. Most of us are familiar with craft knives of the Stanley knife variety, which are extremely useful for a variety of tasks but also much favoured by young knife carriers for their slashing qualities. The blades of such knives can be easily detached and replacement blades purchased. Those blades are not covered by the definition "any knife". By themselves they are not very bulky, and they are therefore sometimes carried by young thugs who wish to evade searches on entering, for example, football grounds. Even without the handle, the blades can inflict great injury, and it would be a mistake not to include them in the ban.
Clause 6(2)(a) refers to "any … razor blade". What most of us understand by a razor blade is a blade used in an old-fashioned safety razor. That needs to be included in the ban for reasons similar to those that I have just given in relation to replacement blades for craft knives. Razor blades are not, however, covered by the definition "knife blade", and therefore need to be specified separately. That creates a difficulty—which brings me to the second of the two articles to which I have referred.
In Committee, I said that disposable razor blades should be excluded from the ban. By "disposable razor blades", I mean the plastic cartridges with two short blades protruding. Not much damage can be done with those, beyond the superficial injuries that may be self-inflicted by the inexperienced shaver. It is perfectly right that someone under 16 who has begun shaving should be able to purchase his own disposable razor blades.
The Bill has enormous support throughout the House. It has been presented and prepared admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The support of the House has continued throughout the Bill's stages. I am disappointed only by the fact that, a few moments ago, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of being complacent. Whatever the political grounds on which the hon. Gentleman might wish to criticise my right hon. and learned Friend, to describe him and his vigorous attacks on


crime as complacent strikes me as inappropriate and very much against the general tenor of our consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Kirkhope: No, I will not give way. I have made my point, as the hon. Gentleman made his.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks carefully. As I said, in certain respects the Government will continue to look carefully not only at his remarks, but at elements affecting the general area of the advertising and sale of knives.
I shall finish as I started. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on her wonderful achievement. This important legislation will do an enormous amount of good.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Prisoners' Earnings Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It gives me great pleasure to return this short, but important, Bill to the House. This is the first time that we have considered it orally in the Chamber. The proceedings in Committee established beyond all doubt that this will be a practical and useful measure. I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee for their thoughtful and constructive contributions and for maintaining the all-party consensus that the Bill has attracted.
I am grateful to the members of the Howard League for Penal Reform and of the Penal Affairs Consortium, to Home Office officials, who have just entered their Box, and to the many others who have supported or issued guidance on the Bill. For many years, I have felt that the practice of prisoners being unemployed and idle in prison should be reversed. They should pay their debt to society while they are in prison, and that would be an opportunity for them to prepare themselves to re-enter society as law-abiding, useful citizens. I raised this matter with lain Macleod, a former right hon. Member of the House, when I was a mere stripling of a student. Unfortunately, he was unable to agree with me at that time, so I am glad to bring the matter to the House now.
In a publication that was kindly published by the CPC in 1992, I wrote about the importance of prisoners paying something directly to the victims of crime. That is part of the Bill.
The Bill follows a series of important reports from Woolf, Tumim and Learmont, who all called for more work to be provided in prisons and for more financial responsibility to be accepted by prisoners. In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the need to give the interests of victims greater prominence in the way in which the criminal justice system operates. One of the Bill's key objectives is to give prisoners the opportunity and the encouragement to do something for victims and potential victims of crime. To achieve that, prisons must provide the capacity for prisoners to work hard and productively, and we need a robust system for deducting part of their earnings to help victims and for other appropriate purposes.
The Bill has three purposes. They are: crime prevention, national housework and help for victims. Victims can be divided into three categories—actual victims, families of victims and taxpayers.
The Bill is not about increasing prisoners' wages, but it allows for a modest pay increase which is necessary to motivate them. Since 1991, the Prison Service has made commendable progress in developing so-called enhanced wages schemes. In 18 prisons, 1,300 prisoners out of 9,000 are employed by prison industries and farms on this scheme. Instead of earning the ordinary wage of £7 a week, prisoners on the scheme are paid £15 or perhaps, occasionally, a little more. However, the average amount is £15. The effects on motivation and output have been quite dramatic. In one workshop output has tripled from


the same number of workers. The beauty of the scheme is that all the extra pay is funded from the value of the extra output produced, so there is no net cost to the taxpayer.
The introduction of a comprehensive system of deductions has been held back by the lack of a proper legal framework, so the Bill provides a clear statutory framework for four deductions: board and lodgings, upkeep of dependants, savings and contributions to victim support and crime prevention schemes. Participation in the enhanced wages scheme to which deductions will apply is a privilege. Prisoners will earn that privilege. Only then will they be allowed to take part. If they are not allowed that privilege, the alternatives will be ordinary prison work on ordinary prison pay.
I have little doubt that the scheme will prove popular among prisoners, leading to increased levels of activity in prison workshops and to busy prisons. It will mean that prison authorities will have to find more work for prisoners. I understand people's concerns about where the work will come from. It is crucial that it should not be obtained at the expense of law-abiding jobseekers in the wider community. That is why the Prison Service is increasingly seeking to work in partnership with private sector firms seeking opportunities for import substitution, and making every effort to ensure that local jobs are not lost. The prison population is about 54,000. If we can get a high proportion of those people working productively, that will help in a small way to stimulate the economy and to contribute to growth and a reduction in unemployment.
May I share with hon. Members a few examples that illustrate those points? For a Manchester firm, bulk container bag production is in progress in certain prisons. That involves import substitutions that would otherwise come from Turkey. For a midlands firm, safe workwear is being produced by machinists in prisons after advertisements locally for machinists produced no replies. Again, no local jobs have been lost.
For Minit shoe repair shops, refurbishing of machines takes place at Wymott prison. For the Prison Service, mugs and toothbrushes are produced at Ranby prison—there is even a night shift to produce those. For another company, mozzarella and ricotta cheese are produced at East Sutton Park. If that prompts hon. Members to ask, next time they eat a pizza, where the cheese comes from, so be it.
In the course of producing the Bill and during its passage through the House, I have been asked some questions. I should like to respond quickly on a few of them. What of prisoners' dependants? Will they lose social benefits? If there is a payment from the prisoner to the family, there may be some replacement of social security benefit, but, given that one of the main causes of spiralling crime is the break-up of family life, I believe that if the Bill can retain the link between the prisoner and the dependant family so that marriages are saved, that will reduce the likelihood of an offender reoffending.
How will the Bill affect the enhanced wages scheme? It will not affect the scheme badly. Prisoners will still be better off than under the old mailbag and pocket money scheme. The enhanced wages scheme will still succeed.
Will prisons directly benefit from the Bill? That is especially relevant to contracted-out prison services. There is a yes and a no. Money from the payment for board and lodging will go directly to the Consolidated

Fund and to the Treasury, so no contracted-out prison—indeed, no prison—will have any conflict of interest, but prisons will benefit because morale in them will be better and they can apply to the Treasury or the Consolidated Fund for project money, possibly from that source.
How will the money be apportioned? I have already mentioned the four destinations. Initially, it will be split simply among four objects, but over the years it may be varied accordingly to what seems relevant in a particular case.
What safeguards will there be against excessive deductions? There will be the prison rules and there will be common sense. This is a voluntary scheme that will succeed only with the will and motivation of the prisoners. In any event, we are signatories to conventions that prevent the use of forced labour which we must observe.
How will the funds be administered? The prisons will set up savings accounts and systems to send money directly to dependants and to voluntary victim support and crime prevention organisations.
Will the scheme be unfair to the unemployed? Indeed, it was put to me by a forceful journalist yesterday that prisoners should stick to breaking rocks in prison. It does not help anyone for prisoners to remain idle. It just adds to our economic burden. It is in the interests of even the unemployed that when prisoners leave prison they have a greater likelihood of going straight, not least because many of the victims of crime are themselves unemployed.
The Government have a proud record on victim support, the funds for which have been increased by 8 per cent. this year. Some £11.7 million has been paid out this year. Under the present arrangements, this Bill will add money to that. That is what the Government intend and there are no plans to change that. Compensation orders will be paid first by offenders in prison, before they become part of the scheme.
There are no losers under the Bill, only winners. Prisoners are motivated, because they will have a little more cash in hand to save for their release. They will gain self-respect from contributing to the upkeep of their dependants. Victim support and crime prevention organisations will benefit from the additional financial assistance they will receive. Society as a whole will gain in two major ways. First, prisoners will come out of prison with some work experience that will help them to resettle in society and avoid reoffending. Indeed, some evidence shows that there is a 50 per cent. greater likelihood that prisoners who have been earning properly, given responsibility and earning respect for themselves in prison will go straight and choose honesty when they come out of prison. Secondly, prisoners will be working more productively. They will be putting something back into the economy rather than just being a burden on the taxpayer.
For the sake of victims of crime, for the sake of prisoners' families, for the sake of the economy and for the sake of all of us, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Alun Michael: I welcome the Bill. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) has taken a constructive approach to the way in which we deal with imprisonment. It is a pity that there is such a short time to discuss the Bill. I understand that the Government are desperate to reach the Constitutional Change Bill of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), which deals with referendums.
The Prisoners' Earnings Bill merits a longer debate as it raises a variety of important issues. However, I do not intend to delay the House. I am afraid that, again, I shall rouse the Minister's zeal to defend the indefensible by pointing out the background against which we are debating the Bill. The Home Secretary is complacent not only about violent crime but about the chaotic state of the Prison Service. That fact has been confirmed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons, as well as by his predecessor.
During this Parliament, the prison population has soared from about 46,500 to about 54,000. That reflects the Government's dramatic failure to address the causes of crime. To make matters even worse, the Prison Service is having to cope with a budget cut of 14.5 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. Not only is that a difficulty facing the Prison Service but it is worrying for the public generally, because if the Prison Service is not effective, a series of offenders who have not been reformed and are likely to reoffend will come back into the community.
Prison certainly has a number of purposes. Punishment and deterrent are crucial, but rehabilitation and making recompense to victims, whether financial or in some other form, are also ways in which the offender should pay his debt to society. It is in the interests of the public for restitution to be paid. It is certainly in the interests of the public and potential future victims to give prisoners a sense of discipline, self-worth and experience of work that is likely to result in their being less likely to reoffend when they are released at the end of their sentence. There are many other issues, such as drugs in prison and the ineffectiveness of much of the psychiatric work that should be going on there, but they go well beyond the Bill's scope.
Reoffending is certainly an issue on which the House should be united. It is not best achieved by sending offenders to so-called "universities of crime". It would be far more prudent to ensure that, once convicted, all activities in which prisoners engage are geared towards effective rehabilitation. That is why we welcome the Bill and have long argued for the principle of productive remunerated work in prisons.
Before the Bill was introduced, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said on the issue to which it refers:
Partnerships between prisons and industry could provide invaluable training with genuine qualifications, so that prisoners will have something to offer back to society on their release rather than improved criminal skills.
Community service schemes have rightly been applauded where they force offenders to make some recompense to their victims, but there is no reason why prisoners should not work to compensate their victims as well. We are looking at ways in which industry can be brought into partnership so that the lot of prisoners' victims can be improved, while ensuring that prisoners are less likely to offend after release.
A balance must of course be struck, because it would be wrong if offenders who ended up in prison were treated better than those in society who are also without proper employment and have not offended in the serious way that has led to imprisonment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) would agree that the Government must maintain a careful balance so that prisoners are not favoured at the expense of other sections of society. Once that is accepted, the principle will be welcome.
We recognise the value of productive work in rehabilitating prisoners, and it is a shocking indictment of policy that, at the end of the 20th century, we do not have effective rehabilitative programmes in all our prisons. One ex-prisoner commented in The Guardian:
The boredom in prison is mindless. Facilities like education, sport or the library are very limited in terms of time and quality and more often take the role of baby-sitting rather than adult stimulation".
A disproportionately large proportion of prisoners have few or no qualifications. A facility to award genuine qualifications based on work could greatly help them to find gainful work following release. Conversely, many other prisoners are highly qualified, and we should try to make them work in prison-based employment that utilises their skills. Just as in the outside world, neither prisoners nor the community at large benefit from wasted ability.
Offenders should never be allowed to earn more money than law-abiding citizens in the community or be advantaged in comparison. I understand and have some sympathy for the proposal that a proportion of the moneys earned should be directed towards victim support schemes and crime prevention measures. We support those very strongly. Community service schemes have rightly made recompense to the victims of crime. It is high time that prisoners should be able to do the same.
However, some concerns have been raised by the Victim Support national office and I hope that the Minister will address two points in his response. First, at the moment, compensation orders are not usually made against offenders who are sent to prison because it is assumed that they cannot pay. A far greater number of prisoners should be able to pay compensation to their victims than is provided for in the Bill. In other words, is it not right that the first call on compensation if a prisoner is able to earn money should be the victim of the crimes for which he has been convicted? I would be interested to know whether the Minister feels that that principle is covered adequately and, if not, whether he will introduce measures to ensure that that principle underlies the way in which we approach a prisoner's responsibility towards the victim or victims of his crime. I am sure that the hon. Member for Finchley, the Bill's promoter, does not disagree with that principle.
The second aspect on which the Victim Support national office has expressed concern, which may go rather more to the content of the Bill, is the compulsory charitable donation. Although the Bill states that donations will be used for voluntary organisations concerned with victim support and crime prevention, there seems to be a suggestion that the main beneficiary will be victim support. If prisoners were allowed to choose the charity to which they gave money, there would be an opportunity for proper thought and discussion about the effects of crime on victims and for reparation.
As the Bill stands, the donation looks a bit like a tax on prisoners. Victim Support is worried about the implication for its Home Office funding. It has always believed that the organisation should be funded by the main criminal justice budget and that the funding should not be dependent on a levy on prisoners. That point ties well with the principle, which I put forward a moment ago, that the first call on the money should be direct compensation for the victims of the crimes that the prisoners have committed. I hope that the Minister will accept that point and the principle behind it.
The notion that some money should be diverted to the cost of keeping inmates in prison is welcome as long as, again, it is not seen as purely a cost-cutting exercise. Reductions in the Prison Service budget have already placed great strain on vital services such as education provision and basic security. As with productive work and training, education is important if we are to produce people who not only have been punished by being in prison and by the discipline of prison but come out more likely to avoid reoffending and to be reasonable members of the wider community. I hope that the Minister can respond positively on that point.
The creation of an investment fund for use by prisoners on release should greatly assist in the first few weeks following release. There are far too many cases of prisoners coming out of prison, being totally adrift and almost drifting into reoffending because their circumstances are not very positive. Obviously, they are still to blame for any offences which they commit. However, it is a foolish society that does not anticipate that danger and does not try to build in protections. For that reason, the proposal to give a prisoner something with which to plan a future on release is positive and sensible, and does not conflict with the concept of punishment for which prison is intended.
I hope that the Minister will respond to my specific questions about the way in which the legislation will be pursued. As I said, the Bill has our support. I welcome this initiative, and congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley on promoting the Bill and on bringing it successfully and simply to its Third Reading.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I do not intend to allow my remarks to range as far and wide as those of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Before I speak on Third Reading in general, I must say to him that, although it is of course possible not only that the numbers of inmates in our prisons have been increasing but that they will continue to increase when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's tough new sentencing laws are in place, our discussions on the Bill have to do with how productive prisoners' lives may be when they are in prison.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) on having brought the Bill through to the point where we are on the verge of giving it a Third Reading. The fact that the Bill has made such relatively trouble-free progress through its Commons stages, and arrives back in the Chamber without amendment, is the result, I think, of two main factors.
First, the proposals themselves are eminently sensible. They open the way for some exciting developments in the way in which work is provided for prisoners in the future, and, as my hon. Friend said, they do so in a way that means that there are no losers as a result of the Bill, only winners.
Apart from the proposals themselves, the second key factor has been the way in which my hon. Friend has guided the Bill through its various stages, building and maintaining a consensus that has embraced hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know that he has also been assiduous in ensuring that outside organisations concerned with crime and the treatment of offenders were consulted, and were content with the direction set by the Bill.
As the House will know, the Prison Service, along with other parts of the public sector, is currently having to examine its operations very critically to meet demanding cost reduction targets; but Ministers and the prisons board have made it clear that we expect cost reductions to come mainly from increased efficiency, not from cuts in regime activities, especially those that can be shown to be beneficial from the point of view of reducing the risk of reoffending after release.
Constructive work clearly falls into that category, and because it actually brings income into the system to offset operating costs, it is in a unique position to maintain or increase the amount of activity provided, while at the same time reducing the net cost of the activity. The key is to get more prisoners to work, and to get prisoners working harder when they are at work. Although work is compulsory for convicted prisoners, those objectives cannot be achieved simply by coercion. As the existing wages schemes show, prisoners will work harder if there is a reasonable incentive.
The arrangements cannot simply be left at that. Prisoners do not have the same living expenses as other people, and it would be wrong for them to accumulate spending money without contributing to the cost of their upkeep, to the upkeep of their dependants or to victim support schemes. The Bill therefore establishes a sensible framework, with appropriate safeguards, for such deductions, as well as for using part of prisoners' earnings for compulsory savings to be repaid on release.
In many ways, the Bill had its origin in the Woolf report on the Strangeways disturbances, but it is also totally in line with the Learmont report, with its call for much more active industrial prisons.
There are two outstanding points. First, I confirm for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that a compensation order to an individual victim of course takes precedence over any other deduction, and that will continue to happen.
Secondly, I agree that Victim Support should derive its main funding from public funds. The Bill does not pre-empt the decision on the voluntary organisations to which deductions should go. Those will be prescribed by prison rules. However, I am interested in the possibility that, when the matter is decided on a local committee basis for prisons, there may be more consultation with prisoners on how the money should be allocated.
I do not want to detain the House. The measure—

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: Very briefly, because I do not want to detain the House.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the positive way in which the Minister responded on those two points. That is most helpful, and enables us to be even more enthusiastic about the Bill. As victims of the actual crimes will have priority in the allocation of compensation, will there be a change in the guidance to the courts, to take account of the change arising from the Bill?

Mr. Kirkhope: Obviously, notification of the legislation's provisions would be given to courts where appropriate. I remind the House that the question of compensation paid to a victim is always a matter for the


courts. They take into account all relevant circumstances when deciding whether a compensation order is appropriate. The Bill's provisions will be made known to the relevant parties.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing an excellent measure that will make a positive contribution to prison life and will be acceptable to the wider community. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Constitutional Change Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful to the House for giving me an opportunity to present my Bill for Second Reading today. I also place on record my thanks to the Clerks for their help in drafting my Bill.
As I stated during my ten-minute Bill speech, the Bill seeks to address the political and constitutional problems that may develop from some of the constitutional proposals being discussed currently. The Bill's objective is to provide for consultation with the people by way of referendum before implementing any constitutional change that is approved by Parliament. In other words, after a Bill has completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament, it must be put to a national referendum in order to decide whether Parliament's proposals will be accepted. There are precedents for that in the Scotland Act 1978 and in a different form in the European Communities Act 1972.
I have news for Sir James Goldsmith: my Bill is not a response to his public statements and actions. In my case, he is about 25 years too late. However, I welcome converts to my cause—even if I have doubts about the wisdom of their tactics.
My Bill, and particularly clause 1, reflects the view that I have held for most of my adult life and follows the line that I took during the public debates in the early 1970s and during the constitutional debates and discussions in the late 1970s. Although I was on the losing side in the 1975 referendum, I support the view that it was constitutionally correct and proper to hold such a referendum.
Clause 1(1) states clearly that any change, redirection or transfer of Parliament's powers agreed by both Houses of Parliament must be put to the people in a referendum. This Parliament, with all its shortcomings—it has a number—is still the finest democratic Parliament anywhere in the world. A cornerstone of the unwritten constitution is the fact that no Parliament can bind future Parliaments. In recent years, constitutional change has undermined that cornerstone. I believe that proposals now under discussion will continue that process.
I believe that Members of Parliament hold the leasehold for our unwritten constitution during their time in this place. While it is in their care, they may make changes that can be altered next week, next year, in five or 10 years or at any time in the future. However, they should not alter the constitution in such a way that it may be impossible for future Parliaments to change it back if they so wish. Hon. Members hold only the leasehold; I believe that the freehold for the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom is the property of the people. Only the people should change the constitution. Sometimes that is called sovereignty: the power of Parliament. The right to create and repeal legislation, to raise taxes, to borrow and to spend, and the right to block supply are powers of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), wrote in the March issue of The European Journal, the journal of the European Foundation:


I launched the Maastricht Referendum Campaign, MARC—which ran from February to July 1993 under the patronage of Lady Thatcher. This meshed with a parliamentary rebellion of a number of colleagues and myself which involved a relentless effort to amend the Maastricht Bill. MARC organised a popular petition to the House of Commons with over 280,000 signatures—no small achievement for an organisation that had to start from scratch without the support of any political party or trade union or any other body with a ready-made national membership and administration. Although it did not succeed in its immediate objective of obtaining a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, the campaign did generate huge media interest and began the process of swaying public opinion. This is now—The Sunday Times has shown—80 per cent. in favour of a referendum on monetary union, which is now the key issue … Lastly let me rebut the silly suggestion that a referendum should be advisory rather than binding. The issue to be decided, let me repeat, is whether we are to continue as a parliamentary democracy or not. That decision cannot be taken by a single parliament for all future generations, any more than a board of directors can merge a company without reference to a general meeting of their shareholders. The source of sovereignty and legitimate authority is the people.
I agree.
Nobody who has studied that which monetary union would involve throughout Europe denies that if Parliament decides to join the single European currency there would be a massive shift to Europe of areas of decision making—that if we signed up for the single currency, there would be a substantial change to the constitutional decision-making powers of this Parliament. Clause 1(1) would ensure that the people would have to be consulted in a referendum.
Part of the problem when discussing the single currency is that the debate is against the background of the UK agreeing that it would not oppose other EU member states going ahead with monetary union. I mention that because, as with many European matters, the negative as well as the positive often has an impact on what may or may not happen.
Another cornerstone of the unwritten constitution is the right of Members of Parliament to ask questions and have them answered. That right, coupled with parliamentary privilege, means that hon. Members can raise matters on behalf of constituents without the risk of action outside Parliament, and all that is done at no direct cost to constituents. Powers ceded by Parliament or given away affect that cornerstone. Again, the unwritten constitution and the citizen's rights and freedoms are affected. I will say more about that aspect later.
Another constitutional area under discussion is the proposals for or assemblies in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. I will confine my remarks to the proposal for Edinburgh, although the problems and principles apply to all three. Clause 1(1) would ensure that any proposal put before Parliament will be debated against the background that whatever is decided by Parliament will have to be put to the people in a referendum. That means that if, heaven help us, we ever had a Labour Government, its Front Benchers would be led by a Scot educated at a fee-paying selective Scottish school. It would have a Cabinet in which the majority of the key posts, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, Secretary of State for Scotland and Patronage Secretary—who has been in and out of the Chamber all morning—will not only be Scots but be from Scottish constituencies. In addition, many of the Ministers of State will be Scots from Scottish constituencies. English Members, representing 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom

population, would be right to say that the Scots were running the United Kingdom Parliament. Consequently, clause 1(1) would force that subject to be at the forefront of the debate.
The debate would probably run as follows: the Scots would be running the Westminster Parliament, yet they would also run Scotland separately. English Members would be unable to vote on matters devolved to Scotland, yet Scottish Members would be able to vote on English education, law and order, local government, transport, the environment and other purely English legislative proposals. Scottish Members would be unable to ask questions or to have debates on matters that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament or Assembly. They would become part-time Members of Parliament and probably should be paid part-time salaries. The cry would be throughout the country: "Is that fair?" Fair, it will not be. The constitutional change would be substantial, which is why clause 1(1) would properly require the matter, after it had been decided by Parliament, to be put to the people in a referendum.
The United Kingdom constitution is not cast in stone. It has evolved since 1707 to meet the needs of the times. Its great strength has been its ability to change. It has changed because Members of Parliament have introduced change, and they have done so by consultation and agreement and in the knowledge that a future Parliament could not be bound by their decisions. There is no consultation or agreement about laws imposed on us by Europe, especially by the European Court of Justice. Is it any wonder that there is ever-increasing concern in the country?
Any proposal to change the way in which we vote in general elections may also be caught by clause 1(1). If so, any proposal for a change to a proportional representation system of voting may have to be put to the people in a referendum.
Claus 1(2) would determine the way in which the question would be asked in a referendum. Parliament would have debated the proposed change, in both Houses, and those debates—from the experience of previous constitutional debates—would be fairly protracted, lengthy and contain considerable detail. I imagine that they would have been fully reported by the media, so no one would be able to claim with any confidence that the issue was too complex to be put to the people. The people would have followed the debates with interest and, as in the Scotland Act 1978 and the Referendum Act 1975, the question put in the referendum would be
Do you think that these changes should be brought into force?
The changes would be clearly stated, whatever they were, so the people would be asked, for example, "Do you wish to set up a Parliament in Edinburgh: yes or no?" or "Do you wish to join a single currency: yes or no?" The clause would address the point that many constitutional experts have made about the difficulty of asking a clear and simple question. In my experience of the Scotland Act 1978 and the following referendum, it was easy to explain what that was about. I say that because I was not on the losing side in that referendum, although I was on the losing side in the 1975 referendum.
Clause 2(1) deals with the conduct of a referendum. It sets out clearly how a referendum should be carried out. There would be no problem, because we have already had the experience of the referendums that I have


mentioned. I will not go into detail because the process would be fairly straightforward. Clause 2(2) provides for the conduct of the counting of the votes, and gives details of the counting officers' duties.
Clause 3 is important. It provides that no court
shall entertain any proceedings for questioning … the numbers … or the validity of anything done or purporting to be done under
the Bill if it becomes an Act. That is to prevent unnecessary interference through the courts.
Clause 4 cites the name of what will become the Act. The schedule sets out the form of the ballot paper.
It would be wrong of me not to draw attention to the final part of clause 1. I want to draw particular attention to it. Subsection (7) reads:
If it appears to the Secretary of State that fewer than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted yes, he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for the repeal of the provisions which were the subject of the referendum.
That is important. That was set out in the Scotland Act 1978, and the provision worked superbly. About one third voted for, about one third against—with those voting for slightly more than those voting against—and one third did not vote. As we in Scotland say, "They didna' care". Of course, they had already been told that if they did not vote their potential vote would be treated as a no vote. That was explained. I think that some lessons were learnt.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister would like to say a few words about my Bill. That being so, I shall not detain the House too long. However, with constitutional change of the sort and magnitude that I have described, I have taken the precedent of the 1978 Act as my guide. It worked well at the time and I believe that it would provide the right levels of checks and balances that are normally expected when substantial constitutional change is to be workable and acceptable. The alternative might create severe political instability.
I believe that my Bill is a necessary measure. Something of its sort will have to be put on the statute book because of the instability that we are experiencing, caused largely by public debate and the pressures that have been mounted by Sir James Goldsmith and others who wish to interfere with the way in which we run things in Parliament.
I make no apology for defending Parliament. I believe that this is the finest Parliament anywhere in the world. We do not get everything right and we do not have all the correct procedures. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. I can say, however, that if my grandchildren inherit what I inherited—the unwritten United Kingdom constitution and all the protections to which I have referred—I shall have passed on to them an extremely valuable inheritance.
If we continue to allow the erosion of Parliament's decision-making powers and if we shackle future Parliaments, or if we seek powers in a way that means that Members can no longer ask questions affecting the rights of their constituents, as is happening progressively, we shall have undermined the cornerstones of our unwritten constitution. That would be foolish and unwise.
It would be foolish and unwise of the Scots, with less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, to expect to run Parliament and to run a parliament at

Edinburgh at the same time, without that process producing a massive constitutional backlash. Against the background of pressures from Europe and those for constitutional change that have not been thought through adequately and fully, and the instability that could ensue and risk the break-up of the United Kingdom that I visualise if the Scots were to be foolish enough to think that they could have their cake and eat it by having the running of this place in their hands—and the running of a parliament in Edinburgh—I have introduced the Bill. I firmly believe that we need such a measure to ensure that we move forward sanely and sensibly on the basis of consultation and consent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) for today giving us an opportunity to consider the arguments for and against the principle of referenda as possible tools in the machinery of government that are available to the Government of the day. Regardless of how this debate might develop and of how the wider discussion of these issues may progress outside the House, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute on a more fundamental issue.
The Bill seeks to put in place a statutory requirement for consultation through the referendum process. But consultation—a readiness to be open to the advice of the electorate and the responsibility of representing the views of the electorate—is the very business of the House and of Members of Parliament. The role of the constituency Member of Parliament is the very bedrock of the system of representative democracy that we have created in this country over very many years, and we are responsible for maintaining it as an effective and valued service.
I acknowledge—as I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members do—the example set for us all by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside, and the conscientious and assiduous manner with which he has represented the views, needs and aspirations of his constituents since he was first elected to the House, in 1979, for the constituency of Perth and East Perthshire. The role of the constituency Member of Parliament, as he well knows, is not an easy one—we can all testify to that—but it is a vital one if our constituents and the electorate more widely are to continue to place their trust in us faithfully to represent their views and interests.
There is no question but that the issue of referendums has been much in the minds of some people. It has, of course, been even more in the minds of an even greater number of journalists and other members of the press and media. Their efforts to talk up the role of referendums has been of more than passing interest to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is therefore useful for us to have a chance to air—or in some cases, I hope, to put in perspective—the benefits that might be expected to flow from a use of referendums that is different from what we have previously known in this country.
I have been struck by the way in which hon. Members have occasionally been seduced by the propaganda about referenda. There is a tendency to think that a referendum will provide an instant "fix" when Governments are faced, as they must be on occasion, with difficult decisions. This Bill takes as its starting point the fact that the system of parliamentary democracy that the United Kingdom enjoys


is somehow no longer robust enough to ensure that decisions taken in this House and in another place will properly reflect the people's consent.
It is right that I should make it clear from the outset that I do not accept such a viewpoint. Parliamentary democracy, as practised in the United Kingdom, is precisely about the need to ensure that decisions are taken by Governments in the light of and with the mandate of the population. That mandate is exactly what is tested at every general election, when the people of the United Kingdom are invited to consider clear statements of policy set out in the party manifestos. We hope that there will be clear statements of policy from the Labour party in due course.

Mr. John Marshall: You'll be lucky.

Mr. Kirkhope: Indeed; as my hon. Friend says, I might be lucky.
People then make their choices and elect a representative whose job it is to represent their views and give effect to the policies that he or she was elected to follow. That is certainly a role that has been performed admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside over the years.
The process of electing representatives and, through those representatives, of formulating a Government is central to the way in which these islands are governed. The general election campaign provides the electorate with the opportunity to test the policies of competing candidates and their parties and proposals. They may do that not on one isolated issue considered apart from the realities of the broader national requirement, but on the full range of concerns which a Government must be prepared to address.
By comparison, a referendum can be a pale and limited thing indeed. That is not to say that a referendum may not engender excitement. Indeed, I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is getting excited.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Not very.

Mr. Kirkhope: I must urge him not to get too excited in view of the time available.
We must be clear, however, that excitement and involvement of the people are not necessarily the same thing. The experience of the 1975 referendum undoubtedly caused a great deal of noise and excitement, as some of us may recall, but is interesting to note that the turnout at the poll did not reflect any great improvement in the extent to which the attention of the electorate was engaged. Indeed, at about 64 per cent., the turnout was considerably lower than we have come to expect at a general election and, if repeated at a general election would, I suspect, be considered a condemnation of the policies and personalities being, put to the electorate.
A distinction is often made between referendums and plebiscites. "Plebiscite" is. of course, much the older term, going back—if they will forgive me—to the vote of the plebs in Rome in the 4th century BC and it was used for the popular consultations in France from 1793 onward. "Referendum" in its current sense appeared in English only in the 1880s, although the Swiss cantons had decided issues ad referendum 200 years earlier.
Eighty years ago, "referendum" was the term used by reform movements throughout the English-speaking world to denote the idea of putting issues directly to the electorate. "Plebiscite" was the term used to describe the efforts by the League of Nations to settle boundary disputes on the principle of self-determination after the first world war. It was also used by the Nazis when they sought endorsement for their hideous policies. The word "plebiscite" has tended to be applied to an ad hoc reference to the people of a specific question and, in particular, of one involving approval for a man or a regime. However, there is no agreed usage.
Referendums as a means of making government decisions or giving legitimacy to them have a history that is almost as old as democracy itself, but they have been invoked only sporadically. A few admirable democratic societies have never tried the device while some authoritarian ones have grotesquely abused it. In the populist progressive upsurge at the beginning of this century, referendums were welcomed by some as a liberating force and as a way of purifying government by enlisting the people against the politicians.
Before the first world war, the most significant development of the referendum as a political institution—[Interruption.] I am hoping that the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) are listening carefully to this. I am sure that it will at least be instructive to them in relation to the constitutional changes that the Labour party may be foolishly considering.
Before the first world war, the most significant development of the referendum as a political institution undoubtedly occurred in Switzerland and the United States. Since 1848, and still more since 1870, the Swiss have accepted the principle that almost every major national decision could become the subject of a popular vote but, in the 1930s, Hitler's plebiscites—with their 99 per cent. affirmatives—cast a cloud over the whole idea of referring specific questions to the voters.
Of course, referendums continued to be used. They have been used continually in Switzerland as well as in California and other states in the United States of America and intermittently in places where they had become a prerequisite of constitutional change. I emphasise that, because Labour's plans for constitutional change may well mean that it will want to investigate the matter much further.
The overwhelming bulk of referendums outside Europe and the old British Commonwealth have been attempts to seek endorsement for a new regime and its constitution, or to demonstrate approval for an established one. Such attempts almost always seem to be successful. Australia stands out as the only country in which referendums have been defeated more often than not. Even in Europe, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden—and, of course, Switzerland—are the only countries in which there have been Government-sponsored referendums that failed to secure a nationwide majority.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend said that referendums were nearly always successful. Will he cast his mind back to 1979, when there were Government-sponsored referendums in Wales and Scotland? In Wales, a majority were against what the


Government wanted; in Scotland, the number voting for the Government's wishes was far lower than the number required by the House of Commons. Does that not demonstrate that in those two countries there is no enthusiasm for the policies that Labour presented then, and still presents today?

Mr. Kirkhope: That was a marvellous intervention, which underlines the point that we are making. It will put the Labour party in an enormous quandary. If its members were sensible enough to listen to my hon. Friend's comments, they may now want to review their position and, perhaps, abandon their unwise and negligent approach to the constitution.
Western democratic states have not been eager to exploit the referendum as a serious decision-making instrument. Switzerland stands out as the only country that has become addicted to the referendum. I shall return to that point later, because it is a useful example of what is wrong with the referendum process when it is used as a palliative in place of firm government.
Apart from Switzerland, countries that have solved one problem by referendum have shown no observable tendency to use the device repeatedly. Switzerland and Australia offer evidence for the proposition that referendums are essentially conservative in nature, although the lesson from the American states is less clear. Particularly in federal societies, voters are cautious about giving new powers to the central authority. Nearly all the negative votes have been repudiations of change. The 85 per cent. vote against right-hand driving in Sweden in 1955 is the most spectacular example—I think the House requires some examples—of rejection of an innovation on which the establishment was agreed; and the way in which the establishment later circumvented that awkward vote is one of the most intriguing commentaries on the limitations of referendums—along with the helpful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Bill Walker: I am reluctant to intervene on my hon. Friend. Let me point out, however, that my Bill is exclusively about constitutional change. Let me also point

out that, given that this week we have considered a Northern Ireland Bill one of whose clauses concerned referendums, I think it legitimate for me to say that my aspirations are not unrealistic.

Mr. Kirkhope: I did not mean to suggest for a moment that I was critical of my hon. Friend or any of his aspirations. I was merely trying to give the House the historical background to constitutional reform, as I think that I am obliged to do. It is important to establish the nature of referendums, the way in which they have been prepared and proposed and the way in which they have operated.
The great majority of referendums have taken the form of a single question put to the elector in an isolated context. Occasionally, more than one question has been put on the same issue. Examples are the referendums on land reform in Denmark in 1963, constitutional change in France in 1945 and electoral reform in Ireland in 1968. But Ireland in 1972, New Zealand in 1949 and 1967 and Italy in 1978 offer the only examples of entirely separate issues being put on the same day—except, of course, for Switzerland and Australia, where a battery of questions has been common. However, even they did not reach the Californian record of 47 different propositions on a single ballot. Several separate questions can be merged into one question, as in France in 1969, and occasionally the elector has been faced with a multiple-choice question.
Of course, when a voter is asked to approve a constitution his single yes or no applies to a host of propositions about the management of his country. As I have said, in general elections under our constitution electors make a choice based upon a wide range of propositions. That is part of the democratic system that we normally pursue.
The wording of a referendum question can also be a matter of controversy. Obviously, if the question is on a large battery of issues, perhaps read for the first time by the voter in the polling booth, the phrasing can have a decisive influence on the result. But when the issue stands by itself and is well publicised—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 10 May.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

ADOPTION LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

DISABLED PERSONS (SERVICES, CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

REGULATION OF FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [19 April]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 10 May.

REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [22 March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 10 May.

ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

WATER (CONSERVATION AND CONSUMER CHOICE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

HOSTAGE RECOVERY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

FREEZING OF HUMAN EMBRYOS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

Education

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. John Marshall: I have instituted this debate because I strongly believe that there has been a decline in relative and absolute standards of education in our country. I remember that in 1960 when my late father went as a visiting professor to North-Western university in America, he came back and said that his students in Glasgow were two years ahead of the students at North-Western. When I was a student, my professor of history went to John Hopkins university in America and his colleagues there said that the students at St. Andrews were two years ahead of American students. I do not believe that such boasts could be maintained today.
Standards have declined both relatively and absolutely and, of course, a second factor is that education is the key to the success of our country. We have limited natural resources and depend for our future prosperity upon the skills of our people. Thirdly, education provides the opportunity for children from deprived backgrounds to leapfrog from inner-city decay and decline to successful careers. Historically, grammar schools provided the opportunity for bright children from poor homes to enter university and go on to successful careers.
There is much evidence that absolute standards have declined. For example, a study of O-level scripts in the 1980s and a comparison with GCSE submissions in the 1990s concluded that pupils' spelling, grammar and punctuation had measurably worsened since 1980. There was a comment in The Times of 9 April that prospective employers and university admission tutors have reported a growing inability among many otherwise gifted students to use appropriate English. We are talking about university admission tutors. If such tutors have reported inability to use appropriate English among the brighter members of our population, what has happened to the less bright children?
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has estimated that British 10-year-olds are two years behind their continental counterparts. In The Times Education Supplement on 15 March, Exeter university said:
British secondary pupils start from a lower level and then make less progress than students abroad".
An Exeter professor said:
We do seem to be underperforming in comparison with European and Far Eastern countries … it is a real concern we are lagging so far behind.
Similar algebra problems were given to English and Scottish students and to those from elsewhere. They were solved by 11.3 per cent. of the British students, 12.5 per cent. of the Germans, 16.6 per cent. of the Polish and 23.9 per cent. of the students from Singapore. At the age of 14, the figures were 14.4 per cent. for Britain, 17.6 per cent. for Germany, 2.9 per cent. for Poland and 30.7 per cent. for Singapore.
In an article in The Times Education Supplement on 5 April, Brenda Leonard said:
The spread of semi-literacy must be stopped.

Anyone who is involved in training post-16 year olds tells the same story—that every day they see evidence of children who have been failed by the education system.
Youngsters … have emerged at the end of 11 years of compulsory education with only the barest knowledge of the English language.
This morning, as I often do, I visited a school in my constituency. I saw that the children were doing some mathematical sums. The first thing that they were asked to do was to multiply 25 by three. They were not eight, 10 or 12-year-olds—they were 14-year-olds.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Not possible.

Mr. Marshall: I have come straight from the school. The answer is 75, of course—I am glad that we have an accountant as a Minister. The fact that 14-year-old children could be asked to multiply 25 by three tells a story about education in this country.
Mr. Christopher Woodhead is chief inspector of schools. If St. Christopher is the patron saint of travellers, Christopher Woodhead is the patron saint of all those who wish to be upwardly mobile in our society. He has shown that pupils achieve less than they should. Half of all primary schools and 40 per cent. of all secondary schools achieve less than they should. More than half of all 11-year-olds are below expected standards in maths and English. At 14, 45 per cent. of pupils fail to meet expected standards in English, maths and science.
On 4 January, Sir Geoffrey Holland, a former permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment, said that education in Britain was placed 35th in the world. The Times of that day said that the results in education were
far lower than its funding deserves.
The figure for 16-year-olds passing GCSE in maths, the national language and one science is 27 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 62 per cent. in Germany and 66 per cent. in France.
Given a simple addition and subtraction, 4 per cent. of the bottom 40 per cent. of 13 year-olds in Britain could answer correctly, but, with a far more complicated sum, 76 per cent. of German children of the same age could do so.
Sir Geoffrey Holland said that 13-year-olds in Britain are two years behind their continental counterparts. We need a change in emphasis on standards of spelling, punctuation and arithmetic. I object most strongly to those patronising people who say that those are middle-class values. A decent education is the birthright of every child. It is especially important for those who live in our inner cities, as education is the escalator of opportunity—it gives children the chance to escape from a life of mediocrity and under-achievement.
Why have we done so badly? It is not that we do not spend enough money. There has been a failure to recognise the wide variety of talent and ability. There are the very academic, the average and the non-academic, who will be blessed with other talents. For too long, we have ignored the very academic child. I remember interviewing some teachers and asking all of them, "How do you deal with the non-average child?" They all concentrated on the below-average child. God must have loved the average child, because he made so many of them. Nevertheless, other countries deal a better hand to all children.

When I visited Israel, I went first to a very academic school, rather like the traditional British grammar school, where the results were very good. I then went to the technical school at Ramat Gan, which taught children how to cut diamonds because that was the local industry. I then went to a school in Jerusalem that was training children to be motor mechanics and hairdressers. People said to us, "You may wonder why we are training children in these skills." They explained that it was so that all the children would have a job when they left school. Indeed, almost all the small garages in Jerusalem are owned by graduates of that school.
I have visited the curriculum centre in the London borough of Barnet, where people are trained to become bricklayers and motor mechanics. There is an enthusiasm among the teachers and the pupils that we do not always find in other schools. It is wrong to describe such training as education for failures; it is a recognition that it is an appropriate education for people with those particular skills. It is significant that, where people have been given such an education, truancy is low.
I asked the person in charge of the centre how many truants there were. He said that there was none because the pupils loved what the centre was teaching them and knew that they were being given a passport to a job when they left the school.
In our secondary schools, there should be greater selection, more training, more setting and more vocational training. However, the real problem can be found well before children go to secondary schools, because the primary schools have failed to recognise the need to push children as far as possible. I once asked the headmistress of a primary school whether she set homework. She said, "Homework—that is rather unfair to some children because they would not do it." Instead, she is unfair to all the children by giving them no homework. Their love of English was to be gained from "Neighbours" rather than reading a book. Their love of spelling was to come from the spellcheck of a computer. Their mental arithmetic was to come from pressing buttons on a calculator. That is not the way to educate children, but it is the path that we have gone down for too long.
I have just carried out a survey of schools in my constituency, when the question of homework was raised. Some of the schools were very good. For example, in the Menorah junior school, the children in the sixth form are set 50 minutes of homework a day. Another school said:
The children will possibly"—
possibly, not probably—
get homework twice a week. Sometimes parents need to take holidays in school time and may ask for their children to be given homework for that period.
How does the school react to that enthusiasm for homework? It does so with the words, "This is not possible."
Another school said that homework is set only at weekends, and when another school was asked about its policy, there was silence at the end of the telephone line. Then it commented:
We do homework as and when. We do not want to overload the children. They need some time off.
Another school said to my assistant:
Of course we have to remember with homework that the teachers have to correct it, and we have to take account of the fact that teachers might be tired.

I would prefer to hear of pupils who were tired because they had done some homework, than of pupils who had not had the opportunity to do it at all.
We must not talk solely about academic standards. We should recognise that the children of today are entering a much more complex world than that of 20 or 30 years ago. The temptations of drugs, for example, are just as potent as the temptation of cigarettes was when some of us were slightly younger. The traditional standards by which most people once lived are under attack as never before. What does it profit a child if he obtains four A-levels and loses his soul to drugs? Education is more important than creating only academic standards. It is also important that the right ethos is inculcated in our children. Some of the denominational schools do a magnificent job, but the quality of religious education in some schools is rather pathetic.
I never thought that I would have to quote the editor of The Observer in support of a course of action, but I should like to refer to an article that he wrote on 2 March 1996, in which he said:
The second fundamental fact of British education is its surrender to the dictates of social engineering rather than universal high standards".
The Times said that the
most important
thing that we need to do is secure
 "a change of philosophy in schools".
For far too long, progressive methods of education have failed. We want an end to calculators and "Neighbours", and an emphasis on spelling, mathematics and the beauty of the English language.
We also want an end to the philosophy that schools should be expected to underperform because of the social mix of their pupils. If Office for Standards in Education figures have shown one thing, it is that some schools in deprived areas can do very well and others half a mile down the road very badly. The schools doing very well are providing the sole opportunity for their pupils to leapfrog out of the vicious circle of deprivation and decline into which they were born, into a prosperous and successful career.
We also need to look at some of the examinations. I do not know whether the introduction of the GCSE has been an unmitigated success. When I was talking to a history teacher the other day, I was appalled to hear him say that pupils who had succeeded in their GCSE examinations did not know how to write an essay, and that they needed to spend the next two years learning how to do so before they could do their A-level examinations.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State never try to tinker with A-levels. They are the guaranteed gold standard of success. We do not want that gold standard to be debased by people saying, "Well, we shall make it easier for students to pass." An examination that is made easier for people to pass ceases to be an examination and ceases to set any standards.
Lord Melbourne is reputed to have said to Queen Victoria:
I don't know, Ma'am, why they make all this fuss about education; none of the Pagets can read or write, and they get on well enough.


The reason why I have made a fuss about education this afternoon is that I believe passionately that there is a need for improvement in our education system and that that need is urgent. Otherwise, this country will go down relative to others.
Equally important, we shall condemn a whole generation, who will not be able to look forward to using their talents to the full. If we deny a generation of schoolchildren that right, we are denying it to them not just for the 11 years that they are in school, but for their many years of life after that.
H. G. Wells said:
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
I believe that we are nearing the situation in which we could lose that race. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some optimism rather than my slightly more jaundiced approach.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): As is conventional, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). However, I am entitled to say that his speech was one of the best researched and best argued speeches that the House has heard for a considerable time and I am certain that it will read as well as it sounded when it was delivered. My hon. Friend has established an enviable reputation for his concerns about educational matters.
It is a coincidence that my hon. Friend and I have both visited schools in our constituencies this morning. The small difference is that while my hon. Friend was visiting those at the upper age range I, as Minister with responsibility for the under-fives, among other things, was visiting the nursery school range and I now sport the evidence—namely the paint stain on my jacket, for which I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I assure you that the damage is not nearly so serious as that suffered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in a well publicised incident recently.
In the time available, I want to address a number of issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South raised and to confirm to him and to the House that raising standards, which was the core of my hon. Friend's argument, has been at the core of the Government's education policies. The reason for that is simple, and my hon. Friend alluded to it. Our economic prosperity depends on well-educated and skilled people. That has always been the case, but the challenge is growing as more and more countries raise their levels of achievement.
We have raised standards—I can assure my hon. Friend of that—and we have done it through the hard work of pupils and students, through the dedication of teachers and not least through a series of education reforms, many of which were bitterly opposed by the Opposition.
Since the first GCSE examinations—I strongly defend the quality of those examinations—the number of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more passes at grades A-star to C has risen significantly from 33 per cent. to more than 43 per cent. We have also seen the proportion of 17-year-olds achieving two or more A-level passes

more than double since the Government took office in 1979. As my hon. Friend is well aware, almost one in three young people now enters full-time higher education compared with fewer than one in eight in 1979.
What are our reforms? The introduction of the national curriculum and its assessment arrangements were and remain crucial to raising standards in our schools. We have acted to remove overload and we have placed greater emphasis on the essential basic skills of literacy and numeracy. I join my hon. Friend in agreeing utterly that those are the key areas, especially in primary schools.
We have been committed to setting schools free—free to develop their particular strengths and to give parents and pupils greater choice. We now have more than 1,100 self-governing grant-maintained schools, educating one fifth of our secondary pupils. Those schools are popular with parents because they achieve results. GM school pupils achieved higher levels in last year's national curriculum assessments than local education authority school pupils at each key stage and in every subject. At GCSE, nearly half those in GM schools achieved five good passes, compared with 39 per cent. in LEA schools.
Our emphasis on increasing diversity among schools has given parents a real and better choice in deciding the type of education that they want for their children. By allowing schools to specialise in particular subjects we have extended diversity and contributed to raising standards. City technology colleges, for instance, teach pupils of all abilities, with particular emphasis on subjects such as mathematics, science and technology. Last year's GCSE results show that they are starting to succeed in tackling underachievement in the inner cities. So it is scarcely surprising that those colleges are popular with parents, and the original 15 CTCs typically receive at least three applications for every pupil place.
The introduction of performance tables to provide clear and accurate information has supported parental choice and stimulated schools to raise standards. Research shows that tables are increasingly being consulted and valued by parents and students.
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the sterling efforts of Her Majesty's chief inspector, Chris Woodhead, in seeking to raise standards. The creation of Ofsted and the introduction of a universal independent inspection system have been fundamental to our efforts to improve education. Since Ofsted was established in 1992, more than 7,000 schools have been independently inspected, and in his recent annual report the chief inspector said that there were clear indications that the processes of inspection and action planning were helping schools to improve teaching methods. As my hon. Friend will be aware, from this month, inspection will include the identification to the heads and teachers concerned of both excellent and poor teaching.
The inspection arrangements also now identify schools that are failing to provide an acceptable standard of education. I shall spend a little time talking about that, because for far too long schools have been able to continue failing their pupils. Legislation that we have introduced is now ensuring that those schools are finally being turned round, or where that is not possible, closed. To date, some 150 schools have been deemed to be failing. Inspectors who revisited 59 of those schools over the past two terms found that almost all had improved, four fifths of them substantially. It is vital that the House


should be aware of that good news, because in some cases schools have been delivering poor quality education for several years, and it is the Government's reforms that have succeeded in turning them round.
Through our improving schools programme we are helping to raise standards for all pupils, and in particular seeking to help schools with serious weaknesses. Measures taken include providing extra resources for LEAs to target such schools in this year's school effectiveness grants for education support and training.
My hon. Friend has showed great diligence in his research on international comparisons. I shall certainly read his speech carefully, but I hope that he will accept from me that valid international comparisons can be notoriously difficult to make. It is always possible to find a survey which shows a particular country in a less than favourable light, but quality evidence is hard to find. The last major international comparison of pupils' performance took place in 1990, and covered mathematics and science. Those findings suggested that English pupils at nine and 13 were mid-ranking in both subjects, and by no means way behind our competitors. Nevertheless, I entirely accept that we must continue to raise our standards. That is why the Government have set up a more detailed study—the skills audit—into levels of achievement in four or five of our major competitors; the results will be published this summer.
More widely still, we are participating in the third international mathematics and science study, which compares the attainments of nine and 13-year-olds, again

in mathematics and science, in 45 countries. Those results will be published from the end of the year, and we shall then have a much clearer picture of where we stand in relation to the rest of Europe and the world.
Although the Government's reforms have significantly raised standards and enhanced choice, I stress the fact that we are not complacent. We still have some way to go to compete with the world's best education standards, and we plan to build on our successes with a host of new initiatives.
My hon. Friend specifically mentioned levels of literacy and numeracy. The 1995 national curriculum assessment results showed that about half our 11-year-olds reached or exceeded the expected levels in English and maths, and about two thirds did so in science. Those results are disappointing, and show that we must continue our drive to raise standards in schools—a drive that has been the purpose of all our reforms, such as the national curriculum and the improving schools programme.
Time does not allow me to answer all my hon. Friend's questions at this stage, but I have welcomed the opportunity that he has provided to debate the Government's education priorities. Our record is one of which we can be justifiably proud, but we are not complacent. We shall continue to take steps to raise standards, to increase participation and to improve choice and diversity in the education system.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.